Judgment: VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. The Second Appeal No.264 of 2015 is filed by the plaintiff in respectof the finding given on mesne profits by the First Appellate Court. The Second Appeal No.286 of 2015 is filed by the defendant No.1. Both the second appeals have been filed against the decree and judgment, dated 28.02.2015 passed in A.S.No.32 of 2014 of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali (“First Appellate Court” for short). The said A.S.No.32 of 2014 is filed against the decree and judgment, dated 03.04.2014 passed in O.S.No.24 of 2012 of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali (“Trial Court” for short). Since both the second appeals are filed against the decree and judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.32 of 2014, this Court clubbed together for being pronouncement of a common judgment. 2. The appellant in S.A.No.264 of 2015 is plaintiff and respondents are defendants 1 and 2; the appellant in S.A.No.286 of 2015 is 1 st defendant, the 1 st respondent is plaintiff and 2 nd respondent is 2 nd defendant in O.S.No.24 of2012. 3.The plaintiff in O.S.No.24 of 2012 initiated action before the Trial Court with a prayer for eviction of 1 st defendant from the plaint schedule property and for Rs.84,000/- towards arrears of rent and for damages of Rs.30,000/- per month from 01.02.2011 onwards with costs of the suit. 4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the said judgment, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed A.S.No.32 of 2014 before the First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Judge allowed the appeal setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrievedthereby, the 1 st defendant in the suit filed S.A.No.286 of 2015 whereas aggrieved by the non-granting of mense profits, the plaintiff in the suit filed S.A.No.264 of 2015. 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 plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments are as follows: The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from Malla Kasi Viswanadham under an agreement on 18.02.2006 and later under registered sale deed, dated 17.07.2008 for a valid sale consideration of Rs.5,28,000/- and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The 1 st defendant has been in physical possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule shop as he was inducted as tenant by K. China Gopaiah, who was the original owner of the plaint schedule property in the year 1990 and later as per the mortgage deed executed by K. Madan Mohan in his favour. There is a covenant in the said sale deed to pay that unpaid sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- in future directly to the mortgagees i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2 to whom K. Madan Mohan mortgaged schedule property and executed registered mortgage deeds for Rs.1,25,000/- on 17.04.2004 to 1 st defendant and for Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.06.2004 to 2 nd defendant. For which his vendor and mortgagees also agreed to receive the mortgage money directly from the plaintiff. The plaintiff redeemed the mortgages of defendants on 04.06.2010 and 08.06.2010 respectively. The plaintiff agreed with 1 st defendant for adjustment of rents to appropriate for mortgage money and lease period was up to discharge of mortgage money. After redemption of the mortgage, the plaintiff, K. Naga Seetha Ramamma and B. Usha Rani issued letters on 30.09.2010, 17.12.2010 and notices on 26.12.2010 and 03.01.2011 and terminated the tenancy of 1 st defendant from 31.01.2011 and demanded to vacate the schedule shop which is not complied by 1 st defendant. Then the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 12.08.2011 to the 1 st defendant demanding him to vacate the plaint schedule property and to pay damages at Rs.1,000/- per day from 31.01.2011 for illegal and unauthorized occupation and usage of the schedule property for which the 1 st defendant had issued reply legal notice with false allegations and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 7. The 1 st defendant filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments. The averments in the written statement, in brief, are as follows: The 1 st defendant has been inducted as a tenant under oral agreement by original owner K. China Gopaiah for doing business in September, 1990 on yearly rent of Rs.2,400/- ending in August next year and rent has been increased for every three years and he paid rents to K. China Gopaiah during his lifetime. After his death, son of K. China Gopaiah by name K. Madan Mohan agreed and continued the tenancy of 1 st defendant and used to take agreed rent which is known to mother and sister of the said Madan Mohan and they never objected his tenancy. The plaintiff is husband of sister and son-in-law of mother of Madan Mohan. The said Madan Mohan borrowed mortgage debt of Rs.1,25,000/- and executed a registered mortgage deed on 17.04.2004 with the consent of mother and his sister and he is not aware of mortgage in favour of 2 nd defendant who is the close friend and associate of the plaintiff. The said Madan Mohan requested 1 st defendant for appropriating the rents payable to him for the interest payable by him and used to pay the balance interest to 1 st defendant. He used to pay yearly rent in advance and after the mortgage also 1 st defendant used to credit the rents in advance for every year in the month of September deducting it from the interest receivable by him and the said K. Madan Mohan used to pay the balance amount of interest. The mortgage debt was cleared on 08.06.2010. The defendant gave reply notice for the false legal notice, dated 16.09.2004 and 11.07.2008 issued by the plaintiff. 8. The 2 nd defendant filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments. The averments in the written statement, in brief, are as follows: K. Madan Mohan mortgaged the property to the 2 nd defendant on 19.06.2004 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under a registered mortgage deed by suppressing his mortgage in favour of 1 st defendant who colluded with Madan Mohan. Subsequently, the 2 nd defendant came to know that Madan Mohan was not sole owner of the plaint schedule property and Madan Mohan alienated the schedule property under a registered sale deed, dated 14.10.2005 to Malle Kasi Viswanadham and Madan Mohan directed him to recover the mortgage debt from the said Malle Kasi Viswanadham. The said Kasi Viswanadham alienated the schedule property to the plaintiff and himself and 1 st defendant agreed to recover the mortgage money from the plaintiff and the mortgage was redeemed on 04.06.2010 by executing a registered document and the mortgage money was paid by the plaintiff to him and 1 st defendant. No relief is claimed against 2 nd defendant. 9. No relief is claimed against 2 nd defendant. 9. On the basis of above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the plaint schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek eviction of 1 st defendant from the plaint schedule property? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent of Rs.84,000/-? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages claimed by him? (5) To what relief? 10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1to P.W.5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-24and Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-29 were marked. 11. 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, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.32 of 2014 before the First Appellate Court, wherein, the following point came up for consideration: Whether the findings of the trial Court on issue Nos.1 to 4 are not justified by evidencing and law? If so, to what relief? 12. The learned First Appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the point, as above and allowed the appeal suit setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the 1 st defendant in the suit filed S.A.No.286 of 2015 whereas aggrieved by the non-granting of mense profits, the plaintiff in the suit filed S.A.No.264 of 2015. 13. On hearing both sides counsel at the time of admission of the second appeal in S.A.No.286 of 2015, on 01.05.2015 , the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree, dated 03.04.2014 passed in O.S.No.24 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tenali? (2) Whether the judgment of the First Appellate Court is perverse for reversing the findings of the trial Court which are supported by both oral and documentary evidence? (3) Whether without proof of proper transfer of title in favour of plaintiff, can assume the attornment of tenancy and whether without being party to the suit between Mr. (2) Whether the judgment of the First Appellate Court is perverse for reversing the findings of the trial Court which are supported by both oral and documentary evidence? (3) Whether without proof of proper transfer of title in favour of plaintiff, can assume the attornment of tenancy and whether without being party to the suit between Mr. Madan Mohan and his family members, whether any understanding between them will binding on the appellant/1 st defendant, and without proper adjudication of those issues, allowing the appeal by reversing the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court is sustainable and tenable? (4) Whether without proper notice to the mortgagee with regard to transfer of title, can it be presumed a valid attornment of tenancy and decree for eviction can be granted? (5) When the entire transfer and non-payment of entire sale consideration under the registered sale deed to Mr. Madan Mohan, brother-in-law of plaintiff, is in dispute, without adding as party to suit and either examining him, since it is case of 1 st defendant that still he is receiving the rentals, allowing the appeal by accepting proper notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act , is sustainable and not liable to be set aside? On hearing both sides at the time of admission of Second Appeal No.264 of 2015, on 17-7-2015, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the respondent/defendant having enjoyed unjust enrichment ought of unauthorized and unlawful usage of the property of the appellant/plaintiff is not liable pay mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of possession i.e., actual eviction? (2) Whether the mesne profits are not admissible to the owner of the property out of the illegal, unlawful and unauthorized possession enjoyed by the tenant under Section 2(12) of CPC? (3) Whether mesne profits are not payable by the tenant when there was a bilateral determination of tenance as per Section 111(g)(2) of TP Act? (4) Whether the respondent/defendant is not liable to pay mesne profits for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property as per the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts? (3) Whether mesne profits are not payable by the tenant when there was a bilateral determination of tenance as per Section 111(g)(2) of TP Act? (4) Whether the respondent/defendant is not liable to pay mesne profits for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property as per the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts? And (5) Whether the tenant is not liable to pay interest on the amount of mesne profits payable from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession out of his unauthorized and unlawful use of suit property? 14. Heard Sri Bommasani Muthyala Rao, plaintiff (party-in-person) and heard Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the 1 st defendant. 15. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence. In a case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh , [ AIR 1993 SC 398 ] , the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.” In a case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar , [AIR 1999 SC 471] , the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 16. The undisputed facts are the schedule property originally belongs to one China Gopaiah and 1 st defendant was inducted by the said China Gopaiah as tenant in the schedule premises in the year 1990 and the said China Gopaiah died in the year 2003 leaving behind him, his wife K. Naga Seetha Ramamma and B. Usha Rani and his son Madan Mohan as Class-I legal heirs to succeed his estate. It is further undisputed that the disputes arose among the family members of China Gopaiah after his death and multiple suits were filed in respect of total properties of late China Gopaiah and a compromise was also affected in the aforesaid suits and the same is undisputed by both the parties. 17. It is also admitted fact that the suit schedule property was alienated by Madan Mohan in favour of Malla Kasi Viswanadham on 14.10.2005 under original of Ex.A.6. Ex.A.6 is preceded by a registered agreement of sale under Ex.A.5, dated 31.10.2004. The recitals in Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 go to show that the property is under mortgage i.e. Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, Madan Mohan and Malla Kasi Viswanadham mutually agreed to pay the mortgage debt due to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.9 registered sale deed, dated 14.10.2005. In Ex.A.9 also it is specifically recited that the plaintiff agreed to discharge the mortgage debt due to defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 for and on behalf of his vendor Kasi Viswanadham. 18. As seen from the material on record, the plaintiff herein discharged the mortgage debt to defendant Nos.1 and 2 and also obtained receipts and it has also further clear in view of Ex.A.6 sale deed obtained by vendor of plaintiff, the tenancy of 1 st defendant with Madan Mohan was attorned. The plaintiff also relied on certified copy of payment receipt said to have been executed by 1 st defendant under Ex.A.14 by redeeming the mortgage. It is also undisputed by 2 nd defendant that the mortgage in favour of 2 nd defendant is also redeemed under original of Ex.A.21 registered receipt. 19. The specific case of the plaintiff is that one Madan Mohan was absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he purchased the same under a registered sale deed under Ex.A.9, dated 17.07.2008. It is also undisputed by 2 nd defendant that the mortgage in favour of 2 nd defendant is also redeemed under original of Ex.A.21 registered receipt. 19. The specific case of the plaintiff is that one Madan Mohan was absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he purchased the same under a registered sale deed under Ex.A.9, dated 17.07.2008. The recitals in Ex.A.9 clearly go to show that the plaint schedule property was alienated to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed, dated 17.07.2008 in favour of the plaintiff. The suit for eviction is filed by the plaintiff in the year 2012. It is admitted case of the 1 st defendant that one Madan Mohan was original owner of the plaint schedule property and he is paying rent regularly to the said Madan Mohan without any default and he pleaded ignorance about Ex.A.9 sale transaction in favour of the plaintiff. 20. The material on record clearly goes to show that under Ex.A.11 notice, the tenancy was attorned on 11.07.2008. By virtue of the said notice issued by Malla Kasi Viswanadham to 1 st defendant by informing about the alienation of the property by Madan Mohan under Ex.A.6 registered sale deed in favour of Kasi Viswanadham and Kasi Viswanadham in turn also alienated the same to the plaintiff. In Ex.A.11 it was further averred that the 1 st defendant is having knowledge about Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.9 transactions but the 1 st defendant is not paying rents since 2006 to plaintiff (Muthyala Rao). The learned counsel for the 1 st defendant pointed out that Ex.A.11 notice is dated 11.07.2008 whereas the plaintiff’s sale deed is dated 17.07.2008, therefore, Ex.A.9 sale transaction is not genuine transaction. The 1 st defendant is a third party to Ex.A.9 registered sale deed. Unless and until Ex.A.9 registered sale deed is legally cancelled, the said registered sale deed is a valid sale deed. Furthermore, the recitals in Ex.A.9 sale deed go to show since there is no income on the plaint schedule property, the vendor of the plaintiff under Ex.A.9 by name Kasi Viswanadham alienated the said property to the plaintiff on 18.02.2006, the same was incorporated in Ex.A.9 sale deed. In the said sale deed it was recited that the vendor alienated the same to the plaintiff on 18.02.2006 under a bill contract for Rs.5,20,000/-. In the said sale deed it was recited that the vendor alienated the same to the plaintiff on 18.02.2006 under a bill contract for Rs.5,20,000/-. Therefore, the aforesaid objection taken by the 1 st defendant is overruled. 21. There is ample evidence on record to show that the plaintiff is owner of the plaint schedule property. It is not at all the case of the 1 st defendant that he is the owner of the plaint schedule property. According to the 1 st defendant, he is a tenant to the plaint schedule property and he is paying rents to the vendor’s vendor of the plaintiff i.e. Madan Mohan. In such a case, what prevented the 1 st defendant to examine the said Madan Mohan to prove that he is paying rents to the said Madan Mohan. The law is well settled that a tenant is always a tenant. He cannot acquire any title against the true owner. A tenant also cannot over turn the rights of the owner and a tenant is also not supposed to dictate terms to the landlord. As stated supra, Ex.A.9 registered sale deed is valid and the same is in force and Ex.A.9 is a valid registered sale deed unless and until it is legally cancelled. As noticed supra, Ex.A.9 sale deed is a registered sale deed and by virtue of Ex.A.9 registered sale deed, the plaintiff is having right and title in respect of the plaint schedule property. 22. A legal notice under Ex.A.10 is issued by the plaintiff to the 1 st defendant through his counsel, dated 12.08.2011 by terminating the tenancy. In Ex.A.19, dated 12.08.2011 it was recited that “the 1 st defendant is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent to the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff herein is also wrote a letter, dated 17.10.2010 and also issued a notice, dated 26.10.2010 and the defendant failed to vacate the schedule premises on 31.01.2011 as demanded by the plaintiff”. In the reply notice under Ex.A.20, it was specifically admitted by the 1 st defendant about the issuance of legal notice in the year 2008 and he also sent reply without vacating the premises. 23. The undisputed facts are the plaintiff herein is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and the 1 st defendant is a tenant. In the reply notice under Ex.A.20, it was specifically admitted by the 1 st defendant about the issuance of legal notice in the year 2008 and he also sent reply without vacating the premises. 23. The undisputed facts are the plaintiff herein is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and the 1 st defendant is a tenant. The plaintiff herein issued a notice under Ex.A.19 by terminating the tenancy. After receipt of legal notice, the 1 st defendant has not complied the demand made by the plaintiff in a quit notice and issued a reply notice by mentioning false averments. A quit notice was issued by the plaintiff to the 1 st defendant by giving 7 days time to vacate the plaint schedule property. The 1 st defendant did not vacate the same and issued a reply notice by mentioning that he is unaware about the plaintiff and he is paying rents to one Madan Mohan. As stated supra, in order to prove the same, the 1 st defendant failed to examine the said Madan Mohan as a witness. 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 to vacate the suit schedule premises within 7 days from the date of receipt of legal notice and the 1 st defendant has not complied the demand made by the plaintiff and did not choose to vacate the suit schedule premises and issued a reply notice by mentioning false averments. The law is well settled that upon expiry of period of lease or on termination of the monthly lease by a notice to quit, the lessee must vacate the property on his own and not wait for the lessor to bring a suit where he can raise all kinds of contests in order to profit from Court delays. The law is well settled that upon expiry of period of lease or on termination of the monthly lease by a notice to quit, the lessee must vacate the property on his own and not wait for the lessor to bring a suit where he can raise all kinds of contests in order to profit from Court delays. It is also settled that expiry of lease by efflux of time results in the determination of the relationship between the lessor and the lessee and no notice of determination of the lease is required. Mere acceptance of rent by the landlord from the tenant in possession after the lease has been determined either by efflux of time or by notice to quit would not create a tenancy so as to confer on the erstwhile tenant the status of a tenant or a right to be in possession. It is well settled that the status of an erstwhile tenant has to be treated as tenant at sufferance akin to a trespasser having no independent right to continue in possession. For the aforesaid reasons, the defendant No.1 is liable to be evicted from the plaint schedule premises. 24. The plaintiff filed an appeal in S.A.No.264 of 2015 against the findings in the judgment in respect of mense profits awarded by the trial Court, the contention of the 1 st defendant is that he used to pay yearly rent of Rs.4,670/- to Madan Mohan. Here, the suit schedule property is a shop situated at commercial locality at Tenali Municipality, in such a case, no prudent man will let out the shop in commercial area at Tenali for yearly rent of Rs.4,670/-. 25. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property is fetching a rent of Rs.12,000/- per month. In the plaint itself, it was averred that the monthly rent from July, 2010 to January, 2011 is Rs.12,000/- and the trial Court has granted the total sum of Rs.84,000/- to the plaintiff. In fact, there is no evidence on record to show that the plaint schedule property is fetching a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/-. Though the plaintiff examined neighbours of the plaint schedule premises as P.W.2 and P.W.3, their evidence is also no way helpful to show that the plaint schedule propertyis fetching a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- form July, 2010 to January, 2011. Though the plaintiff examined neighbours of the plaint schedule premises as P.W.2 and P.W.3, their evidence is also no way helpful to show that the plaint schedule propertyis fetching a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- form July, 2010 to January, 2011. The plaintiff also sought for relief of damages from 01.02.2011 to October, 2011 at Rs.30,000/- per month in total Rs.2,70,000/-. As noticed supra, there is no evidence on record that the plaint schedule property fetches a monthly rent of either Rs.12,000/- or Rs.30,000/-. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the plaint schedule property fetches a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- in those days from July, 2010 to January 2011. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled total amount of Rs.35,000/- instead of Rs.84,000/- towards arrears of rent from July 2010 to January 2011 at Rs.5,000/- per month and the plaintiff is also entitled an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month by way of damages for unauthorized occupation and usage of the plaint schedule property from 01.02.2011 till the date of filing of the suit and also from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession for unauthorized occupation and usage of the plaint schedule property since the tenancy is terminated. 26. In the result, the S.A.No.286 of 2015 is dismissed. Two months time is granted to defendant No.1 to vacate the plaint schedule premises.The S.A.No.264 of 2015 is partly allowed by modifying the decree and judgment passed by the First Appellate Court as the plaintiff is entitled total amount of Rs.35,000/- instead of Rs.84,000/- towards arrears of rent from July 2010 to January 2011 at Rs.5,000/- per month. Since the tenancy is terminated, the plaintiff is also entitled an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month by way of damages for unauthorized occupation and usage of the plaint schedule property from 01.02.2011 till the date of filing of the suit and also from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession for unauthorized occupation and usage of the plaint schedule property, in the said finding given by learned first appellate Judge. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in both the second appeals.As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeals shall stand closed.