( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-3-1994 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, in A. S. No. 9 of 1991 confirming the Judgmen t and decree passed by the Principal District Munsif, Karimnagar, in O. S. No. 980 of 1983, dated 3-5-1991.

( 2 ) THE appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said O. S. No. 980 of 1983. For the sake of convenience, they are referred as such hereafter.

( 3 ) THE facts, in brief, resulting in filing of this appeal are as under: (I) The first appellant-defendant is the landlord of the mulgi bearing no. 2-6-3 situated at Office Road, Karimnagar. The respondent-plaintiff is the tenant for the said premises for the last 21 years. He is running a cloth shop under the name and style "sri Satyanarayana Vastralayam" in that mulgi. The first defendant refused to receive the rents from 1-8-1983. Therefore, the plaintiff sent the rent due for three months through money order on 17-11-1983, but the same was refused by the first defendant. Thereupon the plaintiff filed R. C. C. No. 5 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller, Karimnagar, and obtained orders according to which the plaintiff deposited the rent into court. Apprehending that the defendants may forcibly evict the plaintiff from the suit mulgi and occupy the same by taking the law into their own hands, the plaintiff instituted the suit O. S. No. 980 of 1983 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit mulgi. The plaintiff also filed an interlocutory application No. 1381 of 1983 for granting temporary injunction and interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. In spite of that interim injunction order against them, all the defendants who are inter-related, trespassed into the suit mulgi by breaking open the lock on the intervening night of 7/8-2-1989, removed the stock-in-trade, cup boards and furniture and brought them in a lorry and unloaded them in front of the house of the plaintiff and the plaintiff coming to know of it preferred a complaint in the police station. Subsequent to forcible dispossession of the plaintiff of the suit mulgi, the plaintiff got his plaint amended for the relief of recovery of possession on the ground that he has been forcibly dispossessed and that he is entitled to continue in possession till he is dispossessed through due process of law. (II) The appellants-defendants resisted that suit. It is their case that the plaintiff had committed wilful default in payment of rent, that they never refused to receive the rent, that they never trespassed into the suit premises and that they did not remove the stock-in-trade, cup boards, furniture etc. , and did not throw them in front of the house of the plaintiff. It is their positive plea that the defendants made demand for arrears of the rent due, the plaintiff with a view to evade payment, vacated the suit premises voluntarily prior to 7-2-1989 informing the defendants. It is also their plea that as the plaintiff had sub-let the premises to one Mohan. They have also pleaded that the Civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of possession of the suit mulgi. (III) The relevant issues were settled based on the pleadings. On behalf of the plaintiff, P. Ws. l to 3 Were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D. Ws. l to 3 were examined and no documents were marked. The plaintiff got himself examined as P. W. 1. The second defendant got himself examined as D. W. 1. (IV) On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record the trial Court held that the plaintiff was forcibly evicted from the suit premises on the intervening night of 7/8-2-1989 and that the plaintiff s suit is maintainable. Therefore, the trial Court directed that the plaintiff be put in possession of the sui