K. V. V. SATYANARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) INTRODUCTION: k. V. V. SATYANARAYANA, the unsuccessful defendant in O. S. No. 418 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, vijayawada, had preferred the present appeal. Smt Muttamsetti Tulasi, the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed the suit as against the appellant/ defendant for delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property and for arrears of rent with subsequent interest and also for damages @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. The learned Judge, on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of p. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and D. W. 1 and D. W. 2 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-6 and Exs. B-1 to B-32, and decreed the suit as prayed for with costs, but without awarding any interest and granting future damages at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Hence, the appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF SRI V. S. R. ANJANEYULU: ( 2 ) SRI V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, the learned counsel representing the appellant/ defendant, would submit that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute at all for the reason that the agreed rent per month is only Rs. 800/-and hence, the p remises is governed by the provisions of the andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960. The learned counsel had also pointed out the evidence of d. W. 1 in this regard and had taken this Court through Exs. B-1 to B-6, B-18 to B-32 and would contend that the learned Judge committed a serious error in arriving at a conclusion that the rent as on the date of filing the suit was Rs. 1,740/- and hence, the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned counsel also had pointed out that in the light of the specific plea taken in the additional written statement, the quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882 (For short the Act ) is not in accordance with law. While further elaborating the submissions, the learned counsel would maintain that except the evidence of P. W. 1 relating to the quantum of damages to be fixed, there is no other acceptable evidence. While further elaborating the submissions, the learned counsel would maintain that except the evidence of P. W. 1 relating to the quantum of damages to be fixed, there is no other acceptable evidence. The learned counsel pointed out that the evidence of D. W. 1 on this aspect is clear that it is not a busy locality and the premises is situate in a small lane and in the light of this evidence, the award of rs. 3000/- per month by way of damages cannot be sustained. SUBMISSIONS OF SRI SRINIVAS: ( 3 ) SRI Srinivas, the learned counsel representing the respondent/land-lady, the plaintiff in the suit, would contend that the quit notice is in accordance with law and even otherwise, in the light of the language employed in Section 106 of the Act as substituted by the Amending Act 3 of 2003, the defence, if any, need not be seriously considered. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in m/s. Gold Medal, represented by its sole proprietor, Mohd Ali Arifi (Died) per LRs. v. Smt. Ameena Begum through her GPA. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel pointed out the evidence of P. W. 1 and also Exs. A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-6 and would contend that the evidence is clear on record that as on the date of institution of the suit, the quantum of rent between the parties was Rs. 1,740/ -. and in the light of exs. A-5 and A-6, the cheques, it is for the appellant/defendant to explain as to why the said cheques had been issued and in the absence of any explanation in this regard, the self-serving documents relied upon by him Exs. B-1 to B-32 may not come to his aid at all. Hence, the counsel would contend that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as on the date of the institution of the suit. The learned counsel also had taken this court through the pleadings of the parties and also the evidence available on record and the findings receded by the learned judge. While further making his submissions, the learned counsel would contend that in matters of fixing the quantum of damages, the Court can take judicial notice as to the location of the premises and the other relevant aspects. While further making his submissions, the learned counsel would contend that in matters of fixing the quantum of damages, the Court can take judicial notice as to the location of the premises and the other relevant aspects. The learned counsel pointed out that it is true that elaborate evidence had not been let in this regard and there is oath against oath the evidence of P. W. 1 and the evidence of D. W. 1. But, however, the fact that within a span of a few years, the original rent of Rs. 800/- had been enhanced to rs. 1,740/- would go to show the increase or enhancement of rents and even if this increase is to be taken into consideration, if the corresponding increase is calculated, as on the date of the quit notice and subsequent thereto, the date of institution of the suit, as on the date of the decree, fixing the quantum of Rs. 3,000/- per month would be just and proper. Hence, the said findings need not be disturbed. The learned counsel also pointed out that this appeal was dismissed for default and subsequently, the same had been restored. In the meanwhile, the decree was put to execution and the respondent/land-lady/plaintiff had already taken possession of the premises on 12-07-2005. The learnef counsel would contend that in view of the subsequent events during the pendency of the appeal also, the appeal is bound to fail. ( 4 ) HEARD both the counsel, perused the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record, and the findings recorded by the learned Judge. ( 5 ) IN the light of the submissions made by the respective counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (1) Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as on the date of institution of the suit, in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) Whether the quit notice issued under section 106 of the Act is in accordance with law? (3) Whether fixing the quantum of damages at Rs. 3,000/- per month would be just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case? (4) If so, to what relief the parties are entitled to? points 1 and 2: ( 6 ) THE parties hereinafter, would be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit. (3) Whether fixing the quantum of damages at Rs. 3,000/- per month would be just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case? (4) If so, to what relief the parties are entitled to? points 1 and 2: ( 6 ) THE parties hereinafter, would be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff praying for the relief of delivery of possession of the plaint schedule premises and for arrears of rent with interest and also for realization of damages of rs. 3,000/-per month. In substance, the pleading of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the tenant and the rent is at Rs. 1,740/- per month and hence, the premises is not governed by the provisions of the Andhra pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960. The plaintiff issued the quit notice on 9-7-1988 and the defendant failed to give any reply. The defendant also committed default in payment of rents. On 29-3-1988, the defendant issued a cheque in the name of the Proprietor of Sri venkateswara Oil Merchants for Rs. 1,740/- towards rent for February, 1988. It was dishonoured with an endorsement "refer to drawer". Thus, the defendant had in all to pay arrears of rent from 1-2-1998 amounting to rs. 10,400/- he is liable to pay interest also. ( 7 ) THE defendant filed written statement and also additional written statement. Several allegations had been made and the details of the averments may not be essential for the present purpose. In substance, the stand taken by the defendant is that the rent is not at Rs. 1,740/- per month, but it is only rs. 800/- per month and hence, as on the date of the institution of the suit, the Rent controller alone had got jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and the present civil suit is not maintainable. No doubt, the defendant also denied the other allegations relating to the default committed by him and had taken a specific stand for the quit notice, as it is not a valid one. ( 8 ) ON the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judges settled the following issues: (1) What is the rent payable for the suit premises? (2) Whether the rent is Rs. 800/- per month, and therefore the Rent control Act is applicable to the instant case? ( 8 ) ON the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judges settled the following issues: (1) What is the rent payable for the suit premises? (2) Whether the rent is Rs. 800/- per month, and therefore the Rent control Act is applicable to the instant case? (3) Whether the quit notice is valid? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule premises? (5) To what relief? ( 9 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff, P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined P. W. 1 is the plaintiff and p. W. 2 is her brother, who was helping her in collection of rents. Likewise, D. W. 1 was examined and apart from D. W. 1, D. W. 2, who is said to be maintaining the accounts of d. W. 1 was also examined. Exs. A-1 to A-6 and Exs. B-1 to B-32 were marked on behalf of the respective parties. Ex. A-3 is dated 29-6-1988, the registered notice issued by the Advocate for plaintiff to the defendant. Ex. A-4 is the postal acknowledgment. ( 10 ) NO doubt, an attempt was made by filing an additional written statement taking a plea that Ex. A-3 notice had not been issued by properly complying with the provisions of sections 106 of the Act. This question need not detain this Court any longer. In the light of section 106 of the Act substituted by the Act no. 3 of 2003 and also in the light of the view expressed by this Court in the decision cited 1 supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the quit notice issued under Section 106 of the Act is valid and the same is in accordance with law. ( 11 ) THE next question, which has been argued in elaboration, is in relation to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. The defendant taking the specific plea that the rent at the relevant point of time was only Rs. 800/-per month and hence, the Rent controller alone had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction at that point of time. The evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 is clear and categorical on this aspect. 800/-per month and hence, the Rent controller alone had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction at that point of time. The evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 is clear and categorical on this aspect. It is true that an attempt was made by D. W. 1 by asserting the fact that the rent payable was only Rs. 800/- per month and also he had examined D. W. 2, who deposed relating to the documentary evidence Exs. B-1 to B-32, the receipts and the entries to substantiate the fact that the rent payable at the relevant point of time was only Rs. 800/ -. It is true that there is evidence of D. W. 1 and D. W. 2 and also Exs. B-1 to B-32 on record. It may be that, initially, for some point of time, the rent would have been rs. 800/- and subsequent thereto, it had been enhanced. It is needless to say that the evidence of D. W. 1 is an interested testimony and D. W. 2, working under him, no doubt, had supported the version of D. W. 1. Exs. B-1 to B-32 are the self-serving documents. As against this evidence, ex. A-1-the counter foil receipt for Rs. 1,740/- issued by plaintiff to the defendant towards rent from 1 -9-1988 to 31 -1 -1988 and Ex. A-2- the counter foil receipt dated 29-3-1988 for rs. 1,740/- issued by the plaintiff to defendant towards rent from 1-2-1988 to 29-2-1988, were marked. The evidence of P. W. 1 and p. W. 2 is clear and categorical relating to these documents. Apart from these documents, it is interesting to note that exs. A-5 and A-6, the cheques dated 29-3-1988 and 26-2-1988 respectively, issued by the defendant for Rs. 1,740/-, which had been dishonoured, also had been marked. When Exs. A-5 and A-6 are not in serious dispute, it is but natural that the court may have to arrive at a conclusion that at the relevant point of time, the rent was rs. 1,740/-, as contended by the plaintiff. Except this conclusion, no other conclusion can be arrived at. When these cheques, which had been dishonoured, are not in serious dispute, and that the amount of rs. 1,740/- had been mentioned in those cheques, it is for the defendant to explain. 1,740/-, as contended by the plaintiff. Except this conclusion, no other conclusion can be arrived at. When these cheques, which had been dishonoured, are not in serious dispute, and that the amount of rs. 1,740/- had been mentioned in those cheques, it is for the defendant to explain. In the absence of the same, the learned Judge arrived at the correct conclusion on appreciation of the whole evidence available on record and recorded the positive finding that as on the date of the institution of the suit, the rent being Rs. 1,740/- per month, the Civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said findings need not be disturbed for the reason that the whole evidence available on record had been appreciated at length by the learned Judge and accordingly, the said findings are hereby confirmed. ( 12 ) APART from this aspect of the matter, another crucial aspect is that respondent/ land-lady, the plaintiff in the suit, had already taken possession of the premises on 12-7-2005 and this aspect is not in serious controversy between the parties. Hence, viewed from any angle, the findings recorded by the learned Judge need not be disturbed in relation to these points and accordingly, the said findings are hereby confirmed. Point No. 3: ( 13 ) SUBMISSIONS at length were made by both the counsel relating to the quantum of damages. Whether the quantum fixed by the learned Judge can be said to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The evidence of P. W. 1 and D. W. 1 is available on record. No doubt, the assertion of P. W. 1 is that it is a busy locality and in view of the increase of rents by enhancements, it would be just and reasonable to fix it at rs. 3,000/- per month. The evidence of D. W. 1, who no doubt, deposed that it is not a busy locality and the same is in a small lane, was pointed out. Be that as it may, on a careful appreciation of the sequence of the dates, it can be inferred that there had been enhancement of rent within a short span of time after a couple of years, if the corresponding increase is taken into consideration. Be that as it may, on a careful appreciation of the sequence of the dates, it can be inferred that there had been enhancement of rent within a short span of time after a couple of years, if the corresponding increase is taken into consideration. Taking the over all facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that fixing the quantum of amount of damages at Rs. 2,500/- per month would be just and reasonable and accordingly, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month as damages fixed by the learned Judge is hereby modified to Rs. 2,500/-per month. Except to the extent of the said modification, in all other respects, the findings are hereby confirmed. Point No. 4: ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of modifying the quantum of damages to Rs. 2,500/- from Rs. 3,000/- per month. Except this modification, in all other respects, the findings are confirmed. In view of the fact that the possession had already been taken by the respondent/land- lady/plaintiff, this Court directs the parties to bear their own costs.