JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2015 in A.S.No.133 of 2014, passed by III Additional District Judge, Guntur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2014 in O.S.No.911 of 2010, passed by III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant in O.S. No.911 of 2010, filed by the plaintiffs for eviction of defendant from the suit schedule property and for damages, whereas the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in O.S. No.911 of 2010 before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

4. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.911 of 2010 for eviction of the defendant from the suit property, consisting of ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- and later it was enhanced to Rs.3,500/-, on the ground that the plaintiffs(cid:146) parents are residing along with them and they are of old age and unable to climb the stairs and requested the defendant to vacate the suit property. In spite of repeated requests and in spite of issuing notice, the defendant failed to vacate the same. On 12.06.2010, the defendant got issued notice by enclosing a demand draft for Rs.3,500/- towards rent for the month of June 2010. The plaintiffs gave a reply notice dated 19.06.2010 terminating the tenancy of defendant and called upon the defendant to vacate the suit property by 31.07.2010 and to handover its vacant possession. Despite receiving the said notice, the defendant failed to vacate the suit property and filed R.C.C.No.26 of 2010 before the Rent Controller, Guntur for deposit of rents. The said R.C.C. was dismissed on the ground that the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is not applicable to the suit property. As the defendant failed to vacate the suit property, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.911 of 2010 for eviction and for damages.

5. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he admitted about taking the suit property on lease originally on a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- and thereafter, it was enhanced to Rs.3,500/-. The defendant contended that he was paying rents regularly without any default and therefore, he cannot be evicted without following the due process of law. The defendant also contended that the plaintiffs have no bona fide requirement of the suit property and the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to vacate the said property with a view to let out the same to third-parties for higher rents. The defendant admitted about the notice issued by the plaintiffs and reply given by him. According to the defendant, plaintiffs have four independent houses in and around the suit property and there is no need for them to occupy the suit property and finally prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues. Before the trial Court, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1 and got examined the father of plaintiff No.2 as PW2, and exhibits A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant himself was examined as DW1 and one M.Rangamma was examined as DW2 and got marked exhibits B1 to B22. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant evicting the defendant from the schedule property and directed to handover the vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiffs within two months from the date of decree. The trial Court also directed the defendant to pay damages for use and occupation of the suit schedule property @ Rs.1,000/- per month from 31.07.2000 till the date of eviction from the schedule property.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.133 of 2014 before III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The first appellate Court, after perusing