JUDGMENT : Defendant in the suit filed the above second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2022 in A.S.No.117 of 2019 on the file of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopeta, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2019 in O.S.No.171 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this judgment are referred to as per their array in the plaint. 3. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.171 of 2012 seeking possession of plaint schedule property by ejecting the defendant; direct the defendant to remove the superstructure lying in the plaint schedule or in case if the defendant failed to remove the same, to permit the plaintiff to remove the structures; recovery of damages at Rs.10,350/- for use and occupation from 24.06.2010 to 24.11.2012 and for enhancement of damages etc. 4. Plaintiff, an Ashramam represented by the President of its Trust Board, filed the above suit. In the plaint it was contended that Ashramam is the owner of plaint schedule site. The defendant initially took the schedule site on lease in March, 1997 from the then Mathadipathi of plaintiff Sri Chevuri Satyanarayana for a period of five years and constructed a semi-permanent iron sheet roofed shed in the schedule site and began to run wholesale fancy shop business and he agreed to pay rent at Rs.300/- per month. Mathadipathi Sri Chevuri Satyanarayana, who leased out the property to defendant died on 09.06.1999. After death of Mathadipathi, successor management of plaintiff and defendant came to mutual understanding to determine the subsisting lease and to enter into new contract of tenancy. Accordingly, fresh lease deed dated 24.05.2000 was entered into in between President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer of plaintiff and defendant on 24.05.2000 for a period of 10 years. Defendant agreed to pay rent at Rs.300/- per month for first five years and Rs.345/- per month for remaining five years. Though it was mentioned in lease deed that super structures standing in the schedule site belonged to landlord, defendant disputed and claimed that said shed belongs to him. The Trust Board of plaintiff executed a separate deed of acknowledgment in favour of defendant accepting his claim in respect of super structure on the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff Ashramam is having shopping complex of 17 shops on it frontage i.e. Northern side including plaint schedule. The Trust Board of plaintiff executed a separate deed of acknowledgment in favour of defendant accepting his claim in respect of super structure on the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff Ashramam is having shopping complex of 17 shops on it frontage i.e. Northern side including plaint schedule. The management intended to establish multi specialty hospital utilizing vacant site of Ashramam including the shopping complex site abutting the main road. After expiry of lease period, defendant promised to vacate and handover plaint schedule site to plaintiff, however, he failed to keep up to his word. Legal notice dated 14.08.2010 was issued calling upon the defendant and other tenants to vacate the schedule site. Defendant having received the notice, did not issue any reply. Defendant is also irregular in payment of rents. Tenancy came to an end by 23.05.2010 by afflux of time. Plaintiff is not accepting any rents from defendant after determination of lease and the defendant also not tendered any rent. Defendant is liable to pay damages for use and occupation from 24.05.2010 and hence, the suit was filed for the reliefs stated supra. 5. Defendant filed written statement and admitted that he took plaint schedule site on lease in the month of March, 1997 from Matadhipati Sri Chevuri Satyanarayana. It was contended that Ashramam has no income till 1997 and in order to generate income to Ashramam management offered the vacant site facing towards Markapur road. Defendant along with 12 others came forward to construct sheds for use of commercial purpose. Defendant entered into lease agreement in the year 1997 itself with Matadhipati for 25 years, which was originally vacant site. In pursuance of the same, defendant raised shed shown in plaint schedule. After death of Matadhipati Ch.Satyanarayana, disputes arose between legal heirs of Satyanarayana and they were not settled for a period of one year. Defendant along with other tenants formed into association and deposited rents into nationalized bank. Later, the disputes were settled and Ch.Radha Krishna was elected as President of Trust Board. As per oral agreement in the year 1997, defendant raised shed and continued business for 25 years as lessees with enhancement of rent at 15% on completion of five years. At the time of registered lease deed dated 24.05.2000, plaintiff made believe the defendant that another registered lease deed will be executed for 10 years. As per oral agreement in the year 1997, defendant raised shed and continued business for 25 years as lessees with enhancement of rent at 15% on completion of five years. At the time of registered lease deed dated 24.05.2000, plaintiff made believe the defendant that another registered lease deed will be executed for 10 years. In April, 2010 defendant requested to execute registered lease agreement for further period of 10 years as agreed in 1997. The President of the Trust Board demanded Rs.15,000/- from every tenant as goodwill and hence, the matter was placed before the elders and finally, it was settled on 09.05.2010 confirming the lease period upto May, 2020 on payment of Rs.10,000/- as goodwill. Defendant and other tenants demanded for passing of receipts. The President of Trust Board stated that they are facing litigation before the High Court of AP with endowments department regarding and he would pass receipts and executed registered lease deed in evidence of oral agreement dated 09.05.2010 after settlement of disputes with the department. Defendant is not defaulter in payment of rent at any time. When the President of Trust Board came to Vinukonda on 10th August, defendant demanded for passing of receipts for enhanced rents paid and for payment of Rs.10,000/- towards goodwill, however he postponed the same on the pretext of litigation. Finally, the President passed receipts on white papers with signatures. As per the advice of advocate, plaintiff agreed to obtained award at Mandal Legal Services Authority, Vinukonda and in fact, defendant prepared petition for filing of PLC. Plaintiff suppressed the fact and approached the Court. The suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff has to approach the Rent Controller. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and eventually, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 6. Basing on the pleadings, trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the defendant is entitled to continue in the plaint schedule property till 2020 as a lessee in pursuance of the oral agreement between the plaintiff and defendant? (2) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit for eviction? (3) Whether the defendant had committed willful default of payment of rents to the plaintiff Ashramam for the plaint schedule property? (4) Whether the defendant has continuing to occupy the plaint schedule property without any tenancy rights? (2) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit for eviction? (3) Whether the defendant had committed willful default of payment of rents to the plaintiff Ashramam for the plaint schedule property? (4) Whether the defendant has continuing to occupy the plaint schedule property without any tenancy rights? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant as prayed for? (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages of Rs.10,350/- for use and occupation of plaint schedule property from 24.06.2010 to 24.11.2012? (8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for enhancement of damages from the defendant for use and occupation of plaint schedule site @ Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of suit? (9) To what relief? 7. On behalf of plaintiff, President of Trust Board was examined as P.W.1 and got examined P.Ws.2 to 4. Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of defendant, defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-10 were marked. 8. Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 10.04.2019 decreed the suit with costs directing the defendant to deliver possession within two months. Directed the defendant to remove super structure and if defendant failed to remove, plaintiff is granted liberty to remove the same. Defendant was also directed to pay damages at Rs.10,350/- for use and occupation from 24.06.2010 to 24.11.2012. Defendant was also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as enhancement of damages for use and occupation from the date of suit till the date of realization. 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant filed appeal A.S.No.117 of 2019 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet. Lower appellate Court being final fact finding Court on consideration of both oral and documentary and legal aspects, dismissed the appeal with costs by judgment dated 21.02.2022 directing the appellant to vacate and deliver possession of schedule property within one month. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed. 10. Heard Sri V.V.Lakshmi Narayana and Sri Kavuri Gopinath, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for respondent. 11. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed. 10. Heard Sri V.V.Lakshmi Narayana and Sri Kavuri Gopinath, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for respondent. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per Ex.A-1 registered lease deed, the property leased out is shed and the rent mentioned in Ex.A-1 is Rs.300/- per month for first five years and thereafter at Rs.345/- per month, hence, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff ought to have invoked the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short “Act 1960”). He would also submit that the Courts below failed to consider the said aspect and thus the judgments under appeal are liable to be set aside. He would also submit that since suit is filed for recovery of possession, plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot rely upon the weakness in the case of defendant. 12. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent would submit that the property leased out is only vacant land and structure was constructed by appellant/defendant. Though it was mentioned in the lease deed about leasing out shed, however in the plaint, it was clarified and asserted that vacant site alone is leased out. He would also submit that in reply notice as well as in written statement and also in the deposition, defendant admitted that the then Matadhipati Satyanarayana leased out vacant site and the tenants constructed shed and thus, he would submit that civil suit for recovery of possession is maintainable. He would also submit that the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact and hence, no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal and thus, prayed the Court to dismiss the second appeal. 13. In view of pleadings and contentions, the following substantial questions of law arose for consideration: (1) Whether in view of pleadings of parties, the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit? (2) Whether the appellant is entitled to continue as tenant in the schedule premises till 2020 as pleaded by him? 14. To appreciate the contentions of both parties, it is necessary to extract the excerpts from the plaint, written statement as well as legal notices exchanged between the parties and also Ex.A-1 lease deed. 15. (2) Whether the appellant is entitled to continue as tenant in the schedule premises till 2020 as pleaded by him? 14. To appreciate the contentions of both parties, it is necessary to extract the excerpts from the plaint, written statement as well as legal notices exchanged between the parties and also Ex.A-1 lease deed. 15. In Paragraph-4 of the plaint, it was stated that “defendant initially took the plaint schedule site on lease and constructed a semi permanent iron sheet roofed shed over the schedule site. Though it is stated in the lease deed that superstructure standing on the schedule site belonged to landlord i.e. plaintiff, defendant disputed claim stating that shed belonged to him. The trust board of plaintiff was constrained to execute a separate deed of acknowledgment in favour of defendant accepting his claim in respect of super structure. Defendant agreed to remove super structure and handover vacant possession of plaint schedule site to the plaintiff after expiry of lease period. The plaintiff is, therefore, not claiming any ownership rights regarding standing structure on the plaint schedule property”. 16. In the written statement, defendant pleaded that “Defendant has taken plaint schedule site on lease in the month of March, 1997 from the then Matadhipati Sri Chevuri Satyanarayana. Defendant along with 12 others came forward to construct sheds for use of commercial purpose. Defendant raised shed shown in the plaint schedule”. 17. Thus, the main plea of defendant is that Matadhipati leased out schedule property for 25 years and when the lease deed dated 24.05.2010 was executed, the plaintiff assured the defendant to enter into agreement with defendant after ten years. 18. In the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, plaintiff reiterated the averments in the plaint and asserted that what was leased out is vacant site, but not super structure. In the cross examination P.W.1 deposed that “It is true that defendant and other tenants have got constructed shops with their own funds”. 19. D.W.1 in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination while reiterating the contents in written statement stated that he along with 12 others came forward to construct sheds for the use of commercial purpose. The vacant site was leased out pursuant to lease agreement in the year 1997 and he raised shed shown in plaint schedule. 20. 19. D.W.1 in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination while reiterating the contents in written statement stated that he along with 12 others came forward to construct sheds for the use of commercial purpose. The vacant site was leased out pursuant to lease agreement in the year 1997 and he raised shed shown in plaint schedule. 20. As stated supra, in Ex.A-1 registered lease deed it was scribed that shed was leased out and the same was mentioned in the schedule. In the legal notice Ex.A-2, it was mentioned that plaintiff constructed iron sheet roofed shop and it was leased out. In reply notice issued on behalf of appellant, it was mentioned that vacant land was leased out and the appellant and 12 others came forward to construct shops for use of commercial purpose. It was further asserted that lessee raised the shed shown in the schedule. It was further asserted that plaintiff admitted construction of shed by the lessee and the lessee is entitled to the shed material at the time of vacating it. In Ex.B-1, copy of PLC, it was mentioned that appellant and 12 others came forward to construct shops for use of commercial purpose and property originally leased out is vacant site. 21. A careful perusal of the above excerpts from the legal notices and pleadings, it is clear that property leased out is only vacant site, but not shed. It is the lessee after he came into possession, raised structure. Though it was mentioned in Ex.A-1 that shed was constructed by the landlord, in view of the evidence on record, it is the tenant who actually constructed the shed. In fact, by the time Ex.A-1 the original Matadhipati was not alive. When the vacant site was leased out to tenant in 1997 original Matadhipati is alive. However, when Ex A-1 was executed the said original Mathadipathi is no more. 22. Plaintiff in the plaint, in so many words stated that vacant site was leased out and though it was mentioned in the leased deed about the shed, the plaintiff is not claiming any right over the shed and prayer sought for in the plaint is also to remove the super structure and to deliver vacant possession. On the other hand, defendant is consistent in his pleadings regarding lease of vacant site and he constructed shed therein. 23. On the other hand, defendant is consistent in his pleadings regarding lease of vacant site and he constructed shed therein. 23. In the absence of any other cogent evidence that what was leased out is shed but not vacant land, in the considered opinion of this Court, findings recorded by the Courts below that only vacant site was leased out and the Civil Court got jurisdiction to entertain the suit, cannot be disturbed. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that recitals in Ex.A-1 have to be considered and any amount of evidence contrary to Ex.A-1 is of no avail to the plaintiff. However, this Court is not persuaded with the submission made by learned counsel for appellant, in view of discussion made supra that Ex.A-1 was entered into after death of original Matadhipati, and plaintiff disowned the structure in the plaint and evidence whereas defendant claimed structure and also deposed the same in evidence. 24. Coming to the facts of the case, as per Ex.A-1, lease was expired on 23.05.2010 by afflux of time. Defendant having pleaded oral lease for 25 years, failed to produce any evidence in that regard. 25. Once this Court came to conclusion basing on material available on record that property leased out is only vacant site, Civil suit alone is maintainable. The contention of learned counsel appellant that as per Ex.A-1 since the rent mentioned is Rs.300/- for first five years and Rs.345/- per month for next five years respectively, the plaintiff has to initiate proceedings under the Act 1960 is meritless and falls to ground. 26. The judgments cited by learned counsel for appellant in Subhash Chander and Ors. Vs. Bharat Petroluem Corporation Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2022 SC 660 and Panga Illayya Vs. Neethi Mahalakshmi, 2004 (4) ALD 511 , do not apply to the facts of the case. 27. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC must confine to the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the concurrent findings of the Court below where the Courts below have exercised the discretion judicially. Further the existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction. This Court cannot substitute its own opinion unless the findings of the Court are manifestly perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Further the existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction. This Court cannot substitute its own opinion unless the findings of the Court are manifestly perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Moreover, unless the appellant establishes that the Courts below mis-read the evidence and misconstrued the documents, the High Court normally will not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. 28. The findings of the fact recorded by the Courts below are based on appreciation of evidence, and unless, the appellant demonstrates that substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC is not warranted. No questions of law much less substantial questions of law arose in the appeal. Hence, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed, however, without costs. 29. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.