JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S.No.123 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada filed this second appeal. 2. The respondent filed the suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit schedule premises and for recovery of arrears of rent from May to October 2001. Damages were also claimed at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month till the date of vacation from the premises. 3. The respondent pleaded that the appellant is lessee and that the conditions of lease are contained in lease agreement, dated 24-02-2001. According to him, the appellant committed default in payment of rents and though a notice, dated 8-12-2001, was issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the appellant had neither paid the rent nor vacated the suit schedule premises. 4. The appellant filed written statement admitting the existence of relationship of lessor and lessee. However, he pleaded that the rent for the premises was only Rs. 2,000/per month and that the lease agreement, dated 24-02-2001, was brought into existence by using certain papers containing his signatures. 5. Through its judgment, dated 9-12-2004, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.15 of 2005 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The appeal was dismissed on 8-9-2006. Hence, the second appeal. 6. Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the lower appellate Court committed a serious irregularity in disposing of the appeal on merits, though neither the appellant nor his counsel were present at the time of hearing of the appeal. He contends that the procedure adopted by the lower appellate Court is contrary to the provisions of Order 41 C.P .C. The learned counsel further contends that the trial Court based its conclusions on Photostat copies, which were not admissible in evidence, and that the decree for damages is without any basis. 7. Sri P.R. Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent, who filed caveat, submits that the appellant did not avail the opportunities provided to him by the lower appellate court and despite the directions issued by this Court in a revision, he did not participate in the hearing. 7. Sri P.R. Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent, who filed caveat, submits that the appellant did not avail the opportunities provided to him by the lower appellate court and despite the directions issued by this Court in a revision, he did not participate in the hearing. He contends that though the lower appellate Court could have dismissed the appeal for default, it had proceeded to add reasons after going through the record and the procedure adopted by it, therefore, cannot be treated as either erroneous or illegal. He also submits that the trial Court was satisfied on all the points pleaded by the respondent and that the decree passed in the suit, as affirmed in the appeal, does not warrant interference. 8. The trial Court framed two issues, namely whether the respondent is entitled for a decree for eviction of the appellant from the suit schedule premises and whether he is entitled to recover arrears of rent. The respondent deposed as P.W.1 and he filed Exs. A-1 to A-5. The appellant deposed as D.W.1 and he did not adduce any documentary evidence. 9. It is true that the lower appellate Court proceeded to dispose of the matter on merits, though no submissions were made on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant is justified in commenting that the procedure adopted by the lower appellate Court does not accord with the one contained under Order 41 C.P .C. At the same time, the consistent lapse on the part of the appellant cannot be condoned only on the ground that the lower appellate court proceeded to dispose of the matter on merits. To compensate the detriment, if any, suffered by the appellant, in this regard, this Court heard the matter in detail, as though it is a first appeal. 10. One of the points urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that trial Court did not frame any issue, touching upon the quantum of rent, though it was specifically pleaded in the written statement that the rent was Rs. 2,000/- per month and not Rs. 6,000/-, as pleaded by the respondent. It is not as if the appellant was precluded from insisting on framing of such an issue. Even at a later stage, application could have been filed for framing additional issue. 2,000/- per month and not Rs. 6,000/-, as pleaded by the respondent. It is not as if the appellant was precluded from insisting on framing of such an issue. Even at a later stage, application could have been filed for framing additional issue. Every denial in a written statement need not give rise to framing of an issue. The trial Court would discern the area of. controversy after going through the pleadings and after preliminary hearing of the parties. Had the appellant been so particular about resolution of controversy as to the quantum of rent, he ought to have insisted on framing of issue at the initial stage or an additional issue at a later point of time. 11. Further, it is not as if the parties are precluded from making out their case, if an issue is not framed on a particular aspect. It is settled principle of law that even in the absence of a pleading and an issue, if the parties understood the controversy and have chosen to adduce evidence, the Courts would be under obligation to record findings and such findings cannot be disturbed, on the sole ground that they are not backed up by pleadings and evidence (sic. issues). Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether the appellant had made any effort in the trial, to prove his plea that the rent was Rs. 2,000/per month and not Rs. 6,000/-. The only evidence adduced by the appellant in the suit is his deposition, and nothing else. On the other hand, the respondent filed a lease agreement, marked as Ex.A-1, Photostat copies of two receipts, and proved that the rent was Rs. 6,000/- per month. In that view of the matter, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court that the rent was Rs. 6,060/per month cannot be found fault with. 12. Another point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that hardly there existed any evidence to support the plea of the respondent that the premises could have fetched Rs. 12,000/- per month and still damages were awarded at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month. 13. Basically, no specific issue was framed, touching upon entitlement of the respondent to claim damages for occupation of the premises or for quantification thereof. 12,000/- per month and still damages were awarded at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month. 13. Basically, no specific issue was framed, touching upon entitlement of the respondent to claim damages for occupation of the premises or for quantification thereof. The trial Court has proceeded to ascertain the damages, while disposing of the suit itself, without relegating the enquiry to a subsequent stage. The burden was squarely upon the respondent to adduce the evidence in support of his plea for damages. The comparative figures ought to have been placed for similarly situated premises. As observed earlier, except the respondent, no other witness was examined and the documentary evidence was confined to the rent receipts and a rental agreement. The question of awarding damages would arise, if only, the rent paid by the tenant was found to be less than the market rent and the damages for use and occupation of the premises must represent difference between market rent and the rent payable by the tenant. When no evidence was adduced, touching upon the plea as to damages, there was no justification for the trial Court in awarding damages. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the second appeal is partly allowed and the decree passed against the appellant for damages is set aside. In all other respects, the decree passed by the trial Court, as upheld by the lower appellate Court, shall remain unaffected. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client may be granted a reasonable time for vacating the premises, since it would take some time for securing alternative premises. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant protracted the proceedings for one pretext or the other and that there are arrears of rent. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is granted time till 1-6-2007 for vacating the premises, subject to the condition that arrears, if any, shall be deposited with the trial Court on or before 30-11-2006. The question as to whether there existed any arrears and the truth or otherwise of the payments, shall be decided by the trial Court in a summary manner. 17. The appellant shall continue to deposit the rents at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per month on or before fifth of every month commencing from November, 2006. The question as to whether there existed any arrears and the truth or otherwise of the payments, shall be decided by the trial Court in a summary manner. 17. The appellant shall continue to deposit the rents at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per month on or before fifth of every month commencing from November, 2006. In default of payment of rent or deposit of arrears as directed, it shall be open to the respondent to seek execution of the decree. 18. There shall be no order as to costs.