JUDGMENT Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. This is defendants' second appeal against concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below. Respondents instituted O.S. No. 213 of 2009 for relief of possession, arrears of rent, as also damages for use and occupation arraigning the appellants as defendants, who entered appearance, and resisted the suit by advancing the plea that they were inducted as tenants of the said premises by the father of the plaintiff and on his death, left behind several legal heirs, hence plaintiff alone was disentitled to the relief of ejectment. In addition, it was contended that another brother instituted O.S. No. 223 of 2000 for partition seeking a share in the suit schedule property which was pending. The Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 12-9-2011 rejected the defence having regard to the decision of this Court in Shivangouda vs. Gangawwa, 1966 (2) Mys. L.J. 148 holding that co-owner can maintain a suit for ejectment and regard being had to the location of the property, directed payment of damages at Rs. 5/- per month for use and occupation from 8-9-2009, while arrears of rent at Rs. 5/- per months from 8-6-2001 to 8-9-2009. 2. That judgment and decree when carried in R.A. No. 46 of 2011, the Additional Senior Civil Judge, KGF, noticed that rent of Rs. 5/- per month was grossly inadequate and enhanced the rent to Rs. 300/- per month other than damages awarded by the Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 1-2-2013. Hence this second appeal. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the judgment and decree impugned. The substantial question of law that arises for decision making is: "Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in directing payment of Rs. 300/- per month as rent though the admitted rent was Rs. 5/- per month?" 4. Since the learned Counsel for the parties have addressed arguments on the merit of the appeal, this appeal is accordingly disposed of by this order with their consent. 5. On 16-4-2014 the following order was passed: "Appellants, indisputably are tenants of the immovable property in question inducted into the premises by the plaintiff's father. Sri P.R. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that if extended a year's time, defendants would vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property subject to payment of monthly rent of Rs. 500/- from 1-5-2014. Sri P.R. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that if extended a year's time, defendants would vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property subject to payment of monthly rent of Rs. 500/- from 1-5-2014. List on 22-4-2014 to file affidavit of undertaking." 6. Sri P.R. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are dillydallying and are not prepared to file necessary affidavit on the premise that they have to secure advice of their Counsel who appeared before the Trial Court. 7. Be that as it may, there being no dispute over the tenancy and the fact that the monthly rent was Rs. 5/- per month, prior to the termination in accordance with law, it is needless to state that the lower Appellate Court though having noticed that the location of the suit schedule property is in a very prominent place i.e. Court Road in Bangarpet and commands a minimum Rs. 10/- per day as rentals, directed the enhanced of the rent to Rs. 300/- per month, not noticing the fact that the appeal was preferred by the defendants and not by the plaintiffs. If plaintiffs were not aggrieved by the direction to pay arrears, rent at Rs. 5/- p.m. and damages at Rs. 5/- p.m. there is no reason as to why the lower Appellate Court interfered with such findings. 8. In the circumstances, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court insofar as it relates to direction to pay rentals at Rs. 300/- per month is set aside and in all other respects remains unaltered. In the light of the fact that Rs. 13,130/- is deposited by the appellant pursuant to the order dated 13-2-2013, registry is directed to make a calculation of the amount due in terms of the decree and make payment of the said sum from out of the amount in deposit and refund balance to the appellant.