1 RRR, J S.A.Nos.106 & 138 of 2025 APHC010485172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO SECOND APPEAL No: 106& 138 of 2025 S.A.No.106/2025 Between: Vommi Padma ...APPELLANT AND Yellapu Prasad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V CH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SECOND APPEAL NO: 138/2025 Between: Vommi Padma ...APPELLANT AND Yellapu Prasad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V CH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 RRR, J S.A.Nos.106 & 138 of 2025 The Court made the following common judgment: As the parties in both these appeals are one and the same and the cause of action is also same, both the appeals are disposed of by way this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri V.Ch. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The appellant is the tenant of the respondent herein. After some time, the appellant herein filed O.S.No.1547 of 2012 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Simultaneously, the respondent herein moved O.S.No.318 of 2012 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for eviction of the appellant. 4. The trial Court, after a joint trial, by separate orders dated 21.01.2020, allowed O.S.No.318 of 2012 filed by the respondent while dismissing O.S.No.1547 of 2012 filed by the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by these orders dated 21.01.2020, the appellant herein moved A.S.No.110 of 2020 and A.S.No.149 of 2020, before the XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The first appellate Court, after considering the rival submissions dismissed both the appeals by separate orders dated 04.07.2024. 3 RRR, J S.A.Nos.106 & 138 of 2025 6. Aggrieved by the orders of the first Appellate Court, dated 04.07.2024, in A.S.No.110 of 2020 and A.S.No.149 of 2020 the appellant has approached this Court, by way of S.A.Nos.106 and 138 of 2025 respectively. 7. Sri V.Ch.Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised various grounds. The learned counsel has now stated that the appellant is not desirous of continuing in possession of the suit schedule property and requires certain time to search for another shop and to vacate the suit schedule premises. 8. In that view of the matter, both these second appeals are disposed of at the admission stage, granting six months time to the appellant for vacating the suit schedule premises.There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Js. 4 RRR, J S.A.Nos.106 & 138 of 2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO S.A.Nos.106 & 138 of 2025 18th July, 2025 Js.