B. S. A. SWAMY, J.

( 1 ) THE respondents 1 and 2 herein filed O. S. No. 158/88 on the file of the Subordinate judge, Tadepallegudem against the appellants for their eviction and for damages contending that they have purchased the suit schedule property from one Muddam Paparao, respondent No. 3 herein. The appellants herein filed O. S. No. 44/88 on the file of the same Court against Muddam Paparao, the original owner, and the respondents 1 and 2 herein and others for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale dated 1-5-1988. The court below by a common judgment decreed the suit O. S. No. 158/88 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein and dismissed o. S. No. 44/88 which was confirmed by the learned single Judge in his common judgment and decree dated 20-2-2002 passed in A. S. Nos. 286/96 and 40/99. The learned single Judge allowed the cross- objections filed by the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 158/88. Aggrieved by this, the present lpa.

( 2 ) FOR brevity, the parties are referred to as arrayed in O. S. No. 158/88.

( 3 ) IN this LPA, the counsel appearing for the appellants (defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 158/88) raised four contentions which are as follows:- (1) The suit O. S. No. 158/88 filed by the plaintiffs (i. e. ,) Vejju venkateswara Rao and Vejju tirupati Rao, respondents 1 and 2 herein, is not maintainable since the rent that is being paid is only rs. 300/- per month by the defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs have to go before the Rent controller seeking eviction and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (2) The suit O. S. No. 158/88 is not maintainable even assuming that the rent being paid by the defendants 1 and 2 is Rs. 1,300/- as both the plaintiffs will be receiving rs. 650/- each per month towards their share. (3) The notice given by the plaintiffs is hit by Sec. 106 of the Transfer of property Act and as such the suit is not maintainable. (4) There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants and as such the suit for eviction is not maintainable.

( 4 ) THE facts are not in dispute. The case of the appellants-defendants is that the suit schedule property belongs to one Muddam papa Rao, 3rd respondent herein, and they have taken the premises on lease from 1960 onwards on payment of Rs. 300/- per month and he was issuing receipts for the rents. In may 1988, the plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 gave a notice to them stating that they purchased the suit schedule property under exs. B-4 and B-5 sale deeds dated 11-5-1988 and 12-5-1988 respectively and they sought for their eviction of the suit schedule premises on the ground that same is required for personal occupation and use. Immediately, the defendants seemed to have given a reply notice stating that the landlord already agreed to sell the suit schedule house to them under an oral agreement of sale on 1-5-1988 and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

( 5 ) HAVING received the notice the plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 158/88 on 15th november, 1988 seeking eviction of the defendants and perhaps the suit papers might have been returned with some office objections. In the mean time the defendants filed O. S. No. 44/88 on 15-5-1988 seeking specific performance of the oral agreement.

( 6 ) THE Trial Court gave a finding that the rent that is being paid by the defendants is only Rs. 300/- but not Rs. 1,300/ -. But the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by holding that the suit is for damages for use and occupation of the premises and since the defendants were not paying any rent to the plaintiffs. As stated supra the learned single judge dismissed the appeals filed by the defendants and allowed the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs by holding that the rent payable is Rs. 1,300/- but not Rs. 300/- as contended by the defendants by relying on Ex. B-2 dated 22-4-1988, a rent receipt for rs. 1,300/ -. In this factual background we have to consider the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document