ORDER : This second appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.90 of 2014 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-X Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry dated 24.01.2018 confirming the judgment and decree in part in O.S.No.752 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry dated 07.10.2014. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 3. The appellant herein is the appellant before the lower appellate court and the defendant No.1 in the suit before the trial court. The respondent No.1 herein is the respondent No.1 in the appeal before the lower appellate court and the plaintiff in the suit before the trial court. The respondent No.2 herein is the respondent No.2 before the lower appellate court and the defendant No.2 before the trial court. 4. The respondent No.1 initiated action in O.S.No.752 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry seeking eviction of the appellant and the respondent No.2 from the suit schedule property and delivery of possession with the payment of damages, arrears of monthly rents and costs. The case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff is that he purchased the suit schedule property which is part of the building bearing D.No.31-1-35, situated at Jandapanja Road, Rajahmundry from Smt.Gowrisetti Srilakshmi who mortgaged the said house for the need of some money. The same was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 27.04.2005 bearing document No.3899 of 2005 for a valid sale consideration of Rs.12,09,000/-subject to mortgage. After the purchase the respondent No.1/plaintiff discharged the mortgage and took the possession of the said house. But the appellant and the respondent No.2 as defendants did not vacate the suit schedule premises and defaulted in payment of monthly rents of Rs.3,000/-per month. Then the respondent No.1/plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on 10.04.2007 to vacate the suit schedule premises for which they have given a reply notice on 17.04.2007 and the rejoinder was given on 17.05.2007. Then another notice was also issued dated 22.10.2007 for which the defendant No.1 issued a reply notice dated 26.10.2007. 5. Then the respondent No.1/plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on 10.04.2007 to vacate the suit schedule premises for which they have given a reply notice on 17.04.2007 and the rejoinder was given on 17.05.2007. Then another notice was also issued dated 22.10.2007 for which the defendant No.1 issued a reply notice dated 26.10.2007. 5. On the other hand, the case of the appellant and the respondent No.2/defendants is that the monthly rent as originally fixed by Smt. Gowrisetty Srilakshmi was Rs.525/-and they paid the rents to the original owner Smt. Gowrisetty Srilakshmi upto January, 2000. As the leasehold shop was got affected during the road widening work, the defendants got the schedule property premises renovated by incurring a sum of Rs.1,51,500/-for which the owner agreed to share 50% of the costs amount and she also took Rs.5,000/-from the defendants as such she became due a sum of Rs.80,750/-in total to the defendants and she agreed to appropriate a sum of @Rs.525 per month to clear the dues till it is completely discharged. As the scheduled premises was not substantially renovated, the suit for eviction is not maintainable and the quit notice issued by the plaintiff is not maintainable. 6. On completion of the pleadings, the trial court framed the issues and examined PWs.1 to 8 for the plaintiff and Exs.A1 to A29 were marked for the plaintiff and DWs.1 to 3 were examined for the defendants and Exs.B1 to B17 and Exs.X1 to X7 were marked. 7. The material on record shows that DW1 in his cross-examination admitted that in the month of June, 2006, DW1, DW2, DW3 and two others and the plaintiff had a sitting and discussed, wherein the plaintiff informed that he purchased the suit schedule property and as such DW1 came to know about the change of ownership in the month of June, 2006. The defendants got marked Ex.B6 – letter/karnama dated 14.02.2000 which says that Smt. Gowrisetty Srilakshmi consented to make repairs/lab etc by the defendant No.1 as the shop was removed in the road widening work and on the same day she received a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The defendant No.1 also got marked Ex.B7 letter dated 27.04.2000 said to have been executed by Smt. Gowrisetty Srilakshmi agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.80,750/-which is deductable by the defendant No.1 @ Rs.525/-per month from the rent amount till it’s discharge. The defendant No.1 also got marked Ex.B7 letter dated 27.04.2000 said to have been executed by Smt. Gowrisetty Srilakshmi agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.80,750/-which is deductable by the defendant No.1 @ Rs.525/-per month from the rent amount till it’s discharge. But the evidence on record discloses that the execution of Ex.B7 was not proved and the evidence on record shows that Rs.3,000/-per month was agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendants. Accordingly on appreciation of evidence, the trial court directed the defendants to vacate the suit schedule premises within one month with a direction to pay a sum of Rs.93,000/-towards arrears of rent within one month and directed to pay Rs.3,000/-per month towards future damages to the plaintiff from the date of suit till the date of vacation of the suit scheduled property while decreeing the suit, by it’s judgment dated 07.10.2014. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court in A.S.No.90 of 2014. The lower appellate court on re-appreciation of the evidence on record and on considering the provision of law under Section 32(c) of the Rent Control Act, as amended in the year 2005 upheld the jurisdiction of the civil court for entertaining the suit for eviction and confirmed the judgment of the trial court to the extent of eviction by modifying the directions of the trial court in respect of payment of arrears and damages vide its judgment dated 24.01.2018 against which the appellant before the lower appellate court and the defendant No.1 before the trial court filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC contending that the agreed rent for the suit schedule shop is only Rs.525/-per month and the Rent Control Act would only apply if default any committed by the tenant and the landlord cannot approach the civil court for eviction by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court erred in coming to a conclusion that the agreed rent payable is only Rs.3,000/-per month for the suit schedule shop, the quit notice is valid, and the eviction suit is maintainable before it. Even the lower appellate court also erred in confirming the same without looking into the purport of the Section 32(c) of the Rent Control Act. 10. Even the lower appellate court also erred in confirming the same without looking into the purport of the Section 32(c) of the Rent Control Act. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ plaintiff contends that the trial court rightly entertained the suit and rendered the judgment and decree for eviction of the defendant and the same was also confirmed by the lower appellate court. Since the suit schedule building was renovated totally, the Rent Control Act would not apply for another 15 years from the date of its reconstruction irrespective of the quantum of rent for it. Section 32 of the old Rent Control Act was amended in the year 2005 and Section 32(c) of the Rent Control Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and as such the suit is only maintainable. However, by virtue of the Act 10 of 2018, the Rent Control Act was repealed with effect from 28.03.2018. Hence, the civil court alone has got the jurisdiction to entertain eviction matters irrespective of the quantum of rent and age of the building. That apart the validity of quit notice is not in dispute in this case. 11. In view of the above said rival contentions and the discussion held as above, it is to be seen that the defendants have got the knowledge of purchase of the suit scheduled property by the plaintiff and the agreed rent was Rs.3,000/-per month and there is no dispute with regard to the issuance of quit notice and the Rent Control Act has no application for the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. When two courts below concurrently held on the above said aspects/issues, there is no ground for interference by this court in this second appeal as there is no substantial question of law involved to entertain the same. 13. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed with no costs. The appellant is directed to vacate the suit schedule premises if not already vacated within three months from the date of receipt of this order unconditionally. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.