IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH S.A. No.508 of 2014 Between:
Pankaj Kumar Moteka And Mamidi Diwakar … Appellant … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH S.A. No.508 of 2014 JUDGMENT:
This second appeal is filed against the judgment dated 03.06.2014 passed in A.S. No.236 of 2012 by the learned judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2012 passed in O.S. No.516 of 2010 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
The appellant and the respondent in the present appeal are the defendant and the plaintiff and the relationship between them is tenant and owner, respectively.
The plaintiff filed O.S. No.516 of 2010 for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property, for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month from February 2010 payable in March, 2010 for future damages at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month and for costs of the suit.
The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 03.07.2012 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with a direction to the defendant to vacate the schedule property within two months, from the date of passing the judgment and shall deliver vacant possession of it to the plaintiff. Further, it was also directed to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.11,500/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy i.e. 22.03.2010 till he vacate and deliver the possession of property to the plaintiff.
Aggrieved by the judgement of learned trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. No.236 of 2012 and the learned lower appellate Court vide its judgment dated 03.06.2014 while confirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dismissed the appeal with costs.
Assailing the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court, the defendant preferred present second appeal.
When the matter has been taken up today at the admission stage, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu sought to address the Court on various questions of law and contended that the provisions of law itself have been not considered according to which, even the suit itself was not maintainable. But, he fairly contended that such plea was not taken either before the learned trial Court or before the learned lower appellate Court and nor such issue was framed for consideration.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the time that was granted to the appellant/defendant to vacate the premises in question by the learned trial Court was expired long back and by afflux of time, the appellant/defendant is continuing over the premises in question illegally and thereby affecting the interest of the respondent/plaintiff.
He further sought to submit that having regard to the fact that no alleged questions of law have been raised before the lower Courts at any stage and no such issues were framed. Since it is concurrent judgment and no substantial questions of law have been made out in this appeal no interference of this Court is required and therefore, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Eventually, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant sought to submit that having regard to the nature of the business undertaken by the appellant/defendant it is very difficult to vacate the premises in question immediately therefore, some reasonable six months time may be granted to vacate and handover the premises in question to the respondent/plaintiff.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff while agreeing partly with the proposal of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that three months time is sufficient and reasonable to vacate the premises in question and same may be granted.
Since the lis between parties has come to a conclusion, I am of the view that this appeal is liable to be dismissed, without going into the merits of the case, and accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, four months time is granted, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the appellant/defendant to vacate the premises in question and hand it over to the respondent/plaintiff. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 14.08.2014 LSK