JUDGMENT
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The appellant is the lessee in respect of the premises bearing No. 11-49-311 of Vijayawada, belonging to the respondent. The lease was commenced in the year 1995, which was from month to month. The respondent filed O.S. No. 2348 of 2001 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for eviction of the appellant. The suit was opposed by the appellant stating that substantial amounts were paid as advance and that there was a subsisting lease. The trial Court decreed the suit through its judgment, dated 28.03.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S. No. 236 of 2005 in the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada. The said appeal was dismissed on 04.06.2007. Hence this second appeal.
2. Sri P. Radha Krishna, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court erred in holding that Exs. B-2 and B-3 through which, the advance rent was paid were not proved. He contends that the respondent did not enter in the witness box and that fact was sufficient to hold that Exs. B-2 and B-3 are proved.
3. Sri A. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the lease was validly terminated by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the Act’) and both the Courts on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence held that Exs. B-2 and B-3 are not proved at all, and as such, the concurrent findings arrived at by both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court do not warrant any interference.
4. The appellant did not dispute the relationship of lessor and lessee as regards the suit schedule premises. The respondent got issued Ex. A-1 under Section 106 of the Act terminating the lease. Since her demand was not complied with she filed the suit. The appellant filed written statement pleading several facts and opposing the prayer for relief of eviction.
5. On a consideration of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues.
(1) Whether there is dual relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not?
(2) Whether the quit notice is properly served and if so whether it is in accordance with law or not?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction as prayed for?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is untitled for arrears of rent as prayed for?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for?
(6) To what relief?
6. On behalf of the respondent P.W. 1 was examined and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. The appellant examined D.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. B-1 to B-8. The suit was decreed and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court.
7. The commencement of lease as such was not disputed. The gist of the plea taken by the appellant is that if the alleged amount paid through Exs. B-2 and B-3 was taken into account, the lease subsisted by the time Ex. A-1 was issued on 24.07.2001. According to the appellant, the amount paid under Ex.B-2 and B-3 holds good up to 31.03.2002.
8. The lease under the Act stands on a different footing, compared to the cases arising under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, The duration of lease under the Act would depend upon the terms of lease deed and in the absence of the same it has to be treated as one from month to month. The very fact that certain amount was paid as advance would not by itself enlarge the period of lease. Even where the payment of such advance is proved, the lessee would, at the most be entitled to recover it, but cannot plead that the lease stands extended for the corresponding period. Therefore, even assuming that the appellant was able to prove Exs. B-2 and B-3, they would not have had the effect of extending the period of lease.
9. Admittedly, the lease lapsed long ago and the same came to be terminated with the issuance of Ex. A-1. When the legal consequences are so clear, there was no way, the appellant could have resisted or avoided the eviction. The factors such as regular payment of rent, absence of default, and the premises not being bona fide required for the landlord are alien to the proceedings under Section 106 of the Act. Therefore, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his client needs reasonable time to secure alternative premises. This request is opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Second Appeal is dismissed by granting time up to 30.03.2008 on condition that the petitioner clears the entire lease amount as directed in the decree on or before 30.10.2007 and pays the monthly rents regularly. In default, it shall be open to the respondent to execute the decree. There shall be no order as to costs.