( 1 ) THE defendants are the appellants in this letters Patent Appeal filed under clause (15) of Letters Patent. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-4-2000 passsed in A. S. No. 167 of 1998 by a learned Single Judge of this Court affirming the judgment and decree dated 30-12-1997 passed in O. S. No. 123 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the Principal subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry.

( 2 ) THE sole respondent herein is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for possession of plaint schedule property after ejecting the defendants therefrom and for recovery of Rs. 4,37,500. 00 towards damages for use and occupation from 15-7-1985 to 15-6-1988 and also for recovery of damages of Rs. 26,000. 00 for use and occupation from 16-6-1988 to 11-7-1988 and for future damages from the date of suit till recovery of possession at the rate of Rs. 1,000. 00 per day.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff insofar as it is relevant in this appeal and in brief is that he is the sole proprietor of the suit property consisting of a ceramic factory existing on a total extent of Ac. 11. 23 cents alongwith several structures like buildings, chimneys etc. , and it was let out to the defendants under an agreement of lease marked as ex. A-1 dated 31-5-1978 and the lease, for a period of five years, commenced on 16-6-1978 ending with 15-6-1983. However, as the defendants did not execute the lease deed the plaintiff filed the suit O. S. No. 146 of 1980 seeking specific performance for execution of the deed which was decreed on 7-3-1983 and later on confirmed by this court in A. S. No. 639 of 1983 on 8-12-1986. There have been several suits filed inter se the parties after the lease period expired. The plaintiff issued notices to the defendants on 1-6-1988,10-6-1988,15-6-1988 and 17-6-1988 for vacating the premises and the same were received by the defendants and they gave a reply on 30-6-1988 with false allegations. Therefore, the suit for possession and also for damages. The suit was instituted on 11-7-1988.

( 4 ) THE defendants contested the suit inter alia on various grounds stating that the suit is not maintainable. The lease as contemplated under the agreement dated 31-5-1978 did not come to an end on 15-6-1983 but is still subsisting and they did not commit any breach of the conditions. As regards the other suits, the plaintiff is to be blamed and responsible. Further, it was contended that the lease deed was executed on 28-1-1989 in pursuance of the decree in o. S. No. 146 of 1980 whereas the present suit which was filed on 11-7-1988, on which day there being no such lease deed, the suit is premature. And the plaintiff having filed certain suits earlier on a certain cause of action and the relief in this suit was available on the same cause of action but not availed of, and therefore, the present suit is barred under the provisions of order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedure. It was claimed that the defendants had exercised their right for seeking renewal of the lease, which is subsisting. Even otherwise, it was stated that admittedly the defendants are using a major portion of the land for agricultural purpose and thus the tenancy being that of agriculture, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956.

( 5 ) THE institution of the present suit, o. S. No. 123 of 1988 was preceded by certain events and certain suits between the parties. The events leading to the disputes between the parties may briefly be noted. Subsequent to the execution of the lease agreement on 31-5-1978 and the commencement of the lease with effect from 16-6-1978, it appears, the relations between the parties became strained. The lessor on 11-1-1980 issued legal notice to the lessee calling upon the lessee to execute and register the lease deed. Another notice was issued to the lessee on 24-1-1980 regarding the claim for certain articles al