Judgment: VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 30.08.2024 in A.S.No.1 of 2024, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 24.08.2023 in O.S.No.135 of 2020, on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam (“Trial Court” for short). 2. The appellant herein is the defendant and respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.135 of 2020. 3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.135 of 2020 with a prayer to direct the defendant to quit the leasehold premises, vacate it, surrender the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiffs within the stipulated time; to pay an amount of Rs.16,49,711/- together with interest at 24% per annum from the date of default towards rental dues; to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages to the plaintiffs for the unauthorized occupation of the plaint schedule premises; to pay the damages of Rs.55,000/- per month from the date of the suit till the date of vacation of the suit schedule premises for unauthorized use and occupation and to pay an amount of Rs.72,000/- towards maintenance charges. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit in part. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.1 of 2024 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant in the above suit approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.135 of 2020, is as follows: (i) The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the Plot No.41 ad-measuring 465 sq. yards as described in the suit schedule. The 2 nd plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant styled as “Indenture of Lease” dated 28.07.2014 permitting the defendant to use the suit schedule premises and the same was reduced into writing on 28.07.2014. yards as described in the suit schedule. The 2 nd plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant styled as “Indenture of Lease” dated 28.07.2014 permitting the defendant to use the suit schedule premises and the same was reduced into writing on 28.07.2014. It was agreed between the 2 nd plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.19,500/- per month towards the lease rent and the lease period is 11 months commencing from 01.09.2024. The defendant has paid the landlord an amount of Rs.90,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.805388, drawn on State Bank of India, Siripuram Branch, towards the interest free refundable security deposit payable to the defendant as and when the defendant quits, vacates and delivers the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises/leasehold premises to the landlady/ 2 nd plaintiff after completion of the lease period by 31.07.2015. (ii) The defendant did not honour the commitment as per the recitals of the lease deed and committed default in payment of the rent. The 2 nd plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the agreed rental amount from 01.09.2024 to 30.06.2014 or otherwise vacate the suit schedule premises. In the said circumstances, the defendant deposited an amount of Rs.79,900/- on 28.07.2016 to the 2 nd plaintiff’s account and kept quite. The 2 nd plaintiff demanded the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises to her. Then, the defendant came forward to renew the oral lease committed with the 2 nd plaintiff intending to pay an amount of Rs.28,000/- from 01.06.2017 to 30.04.2018 for a period of 11 months and the defendant undertook to pay the entire default rent on or before 31.03.2018, but he did not choose to do the same. The defendant did not clear the rent dues till the date. The 2 nd plaintiff, believing the defendant’s words and on an oral lease, the rent was enhanced from 01.05.2018 to 31.03.2018 at Rs.35,000/- per month, but during 11 months period, the defendant neither paid existing rent of Rs.35,000/- per month nor clear the old rental dues. (iii) As the plaintiffs are resident of America, the defendant gave evasive reply to the plaintiffs over phone and postponing the payment of rental dues from time to time despite the demand of the plaintiffs to the defendant to quit the premises and deliver it to them. (iii) As the plaintiffs are resident of America, the defendant gave evasive reply to the plaintiffs over phone and postponing the payment of rental dues from time to time despite the demand of the plaintiffs to the defendant to quit the premises and deliver it to them. Taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiffs are American citizens and are residing in America, the defendant committed default in payment of rents and damaged the appliances and leasehold premises. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the maintenance charges of Rs.72,000/- in addition to the damages to a tune of Rs.50,000/- per month towards the unauthorized use and occupation of schedule premises besides the rental dues as detailed in the annexure appended to the plaint. The plaintiffs got issued a registered lawyer’s notice, dated 14.08.2020 to the defendant to pay forthwith an amount of Rs.18,90,095/- together with interest at 24% per annum from 29.07.2017 to till date besides Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages. The defendant did not choose to pay the said amounts on receipt of legal notice. The defendant did not choose to even vacate the schedule premises and surrender/deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the 2 nd plaintiff and that the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit. 7. The defendant filed written statement. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: As the defendant did not choose to comply the orders in I.A.No.115 of 2021, dated 23.11.2021, the defence of the defendant was struck off on 14.12.2021 as per the orders in I.A.No.115 of 2011. The defendant preferred revision against the said orders in I.A.No.115 of 2011 vide C.R.P.No.21 of 2022 before this Court and the said Civil Revision Petition was dismissed vide orders, dated 07.07.2023. In the said circumstances, the defence pleaded in the written statement cannot be looked into on behalf of the defendant though the defendant is entitled to argue the matter basing on the evidence brought on record. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs as sought in the plaint? (2) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 were marked. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs as sought in the plaint? (2) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 were marked. As the defence of the defendant was struck off, there is no evidence on behalf of the defendant. 10. The learned trial Judge after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit in part in favour of the plaintiffs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.1 of 2024 before the First Appellate Court, wherein the following points came up for consideration: 1) Whether the Respondents/plaintiffs entitled for eviction of the appellant/defendant and recover vacant possession of the leasehold premises due to non-payment of arrears of rents as claimed by the respondents/plaintiffs? 2) Whether the appellant is due and outstanding the arrears of rents as claimed by the respondents/plaintiffs? If so, whether the appellant paid any amount towards arrears of rents? 3) Whether the appellant could demonstrate grounds to continue in the schedule premises as tenant? 4) Whether there is any illegality or material irregularity in the judgment of the trial Court in partly decreeing the suit and whether the same warrants interfere by the Court? 5) To what relief? 11. The learned First Appellate Judge after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendant and dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above suit, filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. Heard Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the respondents. 13. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies the Court that substantial question of law between the parties arise in the case. It is regulated in accordance with law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies the Court that substantial question of law between the parties arise in the case. A proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. In a case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi , [ (2007) 8 SCC 155 ] , the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely, the first appellate Court. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. Where, the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. Mere appreciation of facts, documentary evidence and contents of documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. 14. The defendant having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for his to meet the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law. 15. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below, therefore the grounds urged in the second appeal are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellant has shown any substantial question of law. The contention of appellant is that the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 16. The contention of appellant is that the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 16. The undisputed facts of both the parties are both plaintiffs are husband and wife and the jural relationship between 2 nd plaintiff and appellant/ defendant is admitted by the defendant in the written statement itself. It is also admitted case of the appellant/defendant that he is in possession of the plaint schedule property as a tenant. Ex.A.1 a quit notice goes to show that it has been issued to the defendant by the 2 nd plaintiff through her counsel on 14.08.2020 with a specific demand to pay the arrears of rent and also deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The said notice was addressed to the defendant to the address of the suit schedule property. It is the specific case of the appellant/defendant that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant, the said notice was returned and the learned trial Judge held that the service held sufficient since the defendant has not responded to Ex.A.1 quit notice, it leads to institution of the present suit on 28.09.2020. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit for seeking relief of eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property and to pay arrears of rent. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiffs herein filed an application under Order 21 Rule 15A of C.P.C. vide I.A.No.115 of 2021 in the suit proceedings. On hearing both sides, the said petition was allowed by the learned trial Judge and a time has been granted till 01.12.2021 i.e., more than one month to deposit the arrears of rent. Since the defendant did not comply the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.115 of 2021, the defence of the defendant was struck off, against which Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the appellant/defendant and the same has been dismissed by this Court. 17. Since the defendant did not comply the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.115 of 2021, the defence of the defendant was struck off, against which Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the appellant/defendant and the same has been dismissed by this Court. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that even though the defence is struck off under Order 15-A of CPC, the trial Court has to examine the merits of the case, but the learned trial Judge failed to examine the voluminous of the documents relied by the appellant and no opportunity was given to the appellant to cross examine P.W.1 before the trial Court. As seen from the judgment of the trial Court, the learned trial Judge held in the judgment though an opportunity is given to the defendant, he did not choose to cross examine P.W.1 and that the evidence of P.W.1 is unchallenged. 18. The material on record goes to show that an opportunity was given to the defendant by the trial Court to cross examine P.W.1, but the defendant did not choose to cross examine P.W.1. The learned trial Judge posted the matter on 29.07.2022 and again on 05.08.2022 for defendant side evidence only to the extent of to prove the alleged agreement of sale along with parties to the suit as per the order, dated 14.06.2022 in I.A.No.89 of 2022. Though ample opportunities were given to the defendant, as stated supra, there is no response from the side of the appellant herein and again another opportunity was given and on 10.08.2023, the defendant filed written arguments before the trial Court and later on 24.08.2023 the learned trial Judge pronounced judgment. Therefore, it is quite clear that the appellant was given ample opportunities by the trial Court to cross examine P.W.1 and adduce evidence on his behalf as stated supra, but the appellant failed to avail the same. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that he was not given any opportunity to cross examine P.W.1 is nothing but false. 19. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that a sale agreement and other voluminous of documents were filed by the defendant, but the trial Court without examine the same, pronounced the judgment. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that he was not given any opportunity to cross examine P.W.1 is nothing but false. 19. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that a sale agreement and other voluminous of documents were filed by the defendant, but the trial Court without examine the same, pronounced the judgment. As stated supra, the trial Court has given an opportunity to cross examine P.W.1 and further ample opportunities were given to adduce evidence by the defendant, but the appellant did not avail any opportunity to cross examine P.W.1 and also to adduce any evidence, he filed written arguments before the trial Court. It is well settled that in a suit filed by the land-lord for eviction, a tenant cannot set up a defence of alleged sale agreement in between the parties. Moreover, the alleged agreement of sale and voluminous of documents as alleged by the appellant are not even admitted and not marked as exhibits before the trial Court. If there is any agreement of sale, as stated supra, exists in between both parties, the appellant is having his own remedies by approaching the civil Court. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the trial Court has not considered the voluminous of documents produced by the appellant is unsustainable. 20. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaint is filed through one of the power of attorney holders, evidence was adduced through another power of attorney holder and therefore the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be taken into consideration. In the case on hand, the learned trial Judge allowed the General Power of Attorney of P.W.1 on filing an application before the trial Court and P.W.1 was permitted to give evidence and on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 adduced evidence and Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are got marked through P.W.1. In a Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant against the orders passed in I.A.No.89 of 2022, P.W.1 was permitted by this Court to sign or depose as a power of attorney holder on behalf of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 since both the husband and wife are residing in United States of America. In Civil Revision Petition, the appellant has not raised any objection before this Court. In Civil Revision Petition, the appellant has not raised any objection before this Court. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she is no other than the niece of 2 nd plaintiff and she is also having personal knowledge about the facts of the case. The relationship of P.W.1 with 2 nd plaintiff is undisputed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the Courts below miserably failed to scrutinize the version of the plaintiffs that rent was to be enhanced every year at 10%, though such a rental was not there in any way in any document to that effect. 21. In the case on hand, in the plaint and in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 pleaded that the initial rent is Rs.19,500/- in the month of September, 2014 and claimed enhancement rent at 10% per annum as the defendant committed willful default taking advantage of the plaintiffs residing in United States of America and the suit schedule property is luxury villa and rental value is very high and more than Rs.50,000/- per month, the same is unchallenged by the defendant by cross examining P.W.1 before the trial Court. By giving cogent reasons, the learned First Appellate Judge confirmed the finding given by the learned trial Judge with regard to the quantum of rent. As stated supra, the evidence of P.W.1 is unchallenged by the defendant, though an opportunity was given to cross examine P.W.1, therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is remained unchallenged. 22. Order III Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. The word “acts” employed in Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, confines only in respect of “acts” done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term “acts” would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some “acts” in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined. Here in the case on hand, P.W.1 narrated in her evidence that she is no other than the niece of 2 nd plaintiff and she is having personal knowledge about the facts of the case. Having permitted P.W.1 to defend in Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant, now the appellant is not supposed to take objection that P.W.1 is not competent to give evidence. 23. Admittedly, the plaintiffs issued Ex.A.1 quit notice to the defendant prior to filing of the suit to the address mentioned in the suit schedule premises in which the appellant is staying as a tenant and the said notice was refused by the appellant. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act should be construed broadly and it should not be defeated by inaccuracies either in the description of the premises or name of the tenants or the date of expiry of notice. From the language used in the quit notice, it must be endeavored to ascertain the intention of the parties and that effect thereof and it should not be the read in hyper critical manner but should be construed in a commonsense way. Admittedly, the tenant was asked under Ex.A.1 to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the suit schedule premises but the appellant having knowledge about the contents of the notice, kept quiet and also did not comply the orders passed in Order 15-A of CPC petition before the trial Court, which was confirmed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition. Order 15-A of CPC is a special enactment. The learned trial Judge on hearing both sides, directing the appellant to deposit arrears of rent of Rs.10,39,511/- as per the orders in I.A.No.115 of 2021, dated 23.11.2021 by giving more than a month time to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.10,39,511/-. The appellant challenged the said order passed by the learned trial Judge by way of Civil Revision Petition and the said Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by this Court. The appellant challenged the said order passed by the learned trial Judge by way of Civil Revision Petition and the said Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by this Court. Having availed the remedy by filing a Civil Revision Petition, now the appellant cannot set up a new theory that the order passed in I.A.No.115 of 2021 by the trial Court, which was filed under Order 15-A of CPC is not legal. As noticed supra, though an opportunity was given to the defendant to cross examine P.W.1 and to produce evidence, as stated supra, the defendant failed to avail the same. The appellant herein willfully ignored the orders passed by the trial Court under Order 15-A of CPC in I.A.No.115 of 2021, then the defence was rightly struck off by the trial Court. The law is well settled that no party has a right to be heard on merits when the interim orders under Order 15-A of CPC, which is a special enactment, has not complied by the appellant. When the interim orders are not complied willfully without any justification and without paying arrears of rent, the appellant is not entitled to continue as a tenant in the plaint schedule property. 24. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the issues/points against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of substantial questions of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court as per Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. The questions raised, strictly speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law. 25. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised are substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and that therefore, the second appeal is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission. 25. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised are substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and that therefore, the second appeal is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission. The law is well settled that a second appeal shall not be admitted if no substantial questions of law arise for consideration and when no substantial questions of law is involved. The view of this Court is reinforced by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki , [ AIR 2006 SC 1975 ] . In the case on hand, as stated supra, this Court finds after careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and contentions that no substantial question of law is involved, this second appeal is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission, in view of narrow compass of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 26. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by granting two (02) months time to the appellant/defendant to vacate the plaint schedule premises. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.