Telangana High Court
Pailla Gopal Reddy vs Branch Manager, on 4 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.221 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
decree dated 03.03.2022 passed by the VIII Additional District
Judge, Miryalguda, in A.S.No.32 of 2018, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 23.02.2018 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge, Miryalguda, in O.S.No.298 of 2012. Thus, the present
Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the trial
Court as well as the first Appellate Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present Second Appeal
are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S.No.298 of
2012 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises and also
for recovery of arrears of monthly rent of Rs.2,49,260/- with
effect from 13.01.2011 to 02.11.2012.
4. It was contended that the plaintiff was the owner of the
commercial complex built in Plot No.7, Block No.19, situated in
Survey Nos.730, 736 and 737, Sagar Road, Miryalguda. The
defendant Bank had obtained the suit premises i.e., 10 feet x 10 2 LNA, J S.A.No.221 of 2023
feet roof in the ground floor of the said complex on lease from the
plaintiff for establishing its ATM on a rent of Rs.10,000/- per
month. The said lease was oral one. Apart from that, the
defendant Bank had also taken a premises admeasuring 2000
square feet plinth area in the first floor of the said commercial
complex on lease for running the Bank and a lease deed was
executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. The
defendant Bank established its ATM in the said premises and
running the same. However, the defendants defaulted in
payment of monthly rents from 13.01.2011. Hence, the plaintiff
got issued a legal notice dated 18.08.2012 demanding the
defendant Bank to vacate the schedule premises and pay the
arrears of rent. But, the defendant Bank instead of vacating the
suit premises, got issued a reply dated 20.09.2012 with false and
baseless allegations. Hence, the suit.
5. The defendant Bank filed written statement denying the
plaint averments and inter alia stating that they took the suit
schedule premises from the plaintiff for establishing Bank and
ATM; that they have been paying rent at Rs.28,000/- per month
regularly in terms of the lease deed dated 13.12.2010 to the 3 LNA, J S.A.No.221 of 2023
plaintiff and it did not commit any default in payment of the rent
and that in terms of the lease agreement, it is entitled to continue
in the suit premises for nine years.
6. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1
and A.2 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2
were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
7. The trial Court, after considering the entire material
available on record, vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.2018,
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed
A.S.No.32 of 2018. The first Appellate Court on re-appreciation of
the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on
record dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated
03.03.2022. Hence, the present second appeal.
8. Heard Sri Bharath Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri B. Mohan, the learned counsel for the respondents.
Perused the record.
9. A perusal of the record discloses that both the Courts
below concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to establish his
case that the suit schedule property was let out to the defendant 4 LNA, J S.A.No.221 of 2023
Bank under a separate lease and therefore, he is not entitled to
either arrears of rent or future rent.
10. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the
trial Court decreed the suit without proper appreciation of the
evidence and the first Appellate Court also committed an error in
confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
11. However, learned counsel for appellant failed to raise any
substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this
Second Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are
factual in nature and do not qualify as the substantial questions
of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C.
12. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the
Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100
C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings
arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record.
13. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 1, the Apex Court held that
the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the
evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under
1 (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 5 LNA, J S.A.No.221 of 2023
Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only
where a substantial question of law is raised and fell for
consideration.
14. Having considered the entire material available on record
and the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first
Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting
interference with the said concurrent findings, under Section 100
C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant are factual
in nature and no question of law much less a substantial question
of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal.
15. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 04.01.2024 va
