K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THESE are eight appeals. They have been heard together as there is common question of law and fact and this judgment will govern them all

( 2 ) IT is a common ground that the respondents were inducted into possession in respect of separate portions of the land belonging to the appellants bus complex at tenali on 30-8-1977, except the respondent in a. S. No. 2708 of 1989, who was inducted into possession on 1-12-1977, and respondent in a-S. No. 1502 of 1989, who was inducted into possession on 20-2-1978, for running various stalls against payment of different monthly amounts. The respondents remained in possession upto 31 -3-1980 by virtue of separate written agreements with the appellants. Thereafter, they continued to be in possession of their stalls on enhanced monthly amounts upto 31 -3-1983. Thereafter, dispute between the parties to the suit arose.

( 3 ) THE appellants filed O. S. No. 43 of 1986 against the plaintiff of O. S. No. 154 of 1988, o. S. 1no. 48 of 1986 against the plaintiff of o. S. No. 155 of 1988, O. S. No. 44 of 1986 against the plaintiff of O. S. No. 150 of 1988, o. S. No. 47 of 1986 against the plaintiff of o. S. No. 152 of 1988, O. S. No. 45 of 1986 against the plaintiff of O. S. No. 151 of 1988 and O. S. No. 46of 1986 against the plaintiff of o. S. No. 153 of 1988 for damages for use and occupation of the stalls in their possession from 1-4-1983 to 28-2-1986, that is upto the date of institution of the suits, whereas the respondents filed the aforementioned suits against the appellants for permanent injunction restraining them from disturbing their possession until they are evicted in due course of law. One Mr. Mellagu Ramulu also filed o. S. No. 156 of 1988 against the appellants for permanent injunction restraining them from disturbing him from the stall in his possession until he is evicted in due course of law.

( 4 ) IT is a matter of record that the suits for permanent injunction filed by the respondents as also by one Mr. Mellagu Ramulu were transferred from the Court of the Principal district Munsif, Tenali to the Court of the principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali under orders of the District Judge, Guntur and all the suits have been disposed of by a common judgment by the Principal Subordinate Judge, tenali on 30-12-1988.

( 5 ) THE case as set out by the appellants in all the aforementioned suits, in brief, is that the respondent being the highest bidder in the tender was accorded licence to run the stall on payment of monthly licence fee as per the written agreement. After expiry of the licence period, the respondent was permitted to continue to run the stall for another term of three years commencing from 1 -4-1980 to 31-3-1983 on payment of enhanced licence fee, under a fresh agreement dated 7-4-1981. The period of licence expired on 31-3-1983 but, even on demand, the respondent did not handover the vacant possession of the stall in question and on the other had filed suit for permanent injunction and obtained temporary injunction also. The appellants called fresh tenders on 6-2-1984 in respect of various stalls and in answer to the notification many tenders were received including the tender of the respondent. The offer of the respondent was not accepted by the tender committee because his bid was low and he was informed by a written letter accordingly. The respondent expressed his inability to pay monthly amount equivalent to the highest bid and instead offered another amount as monthly licence fee. But, it was not finalised because, in the meantime, he filed the suit for permanent injunction. The respondent is continuing in possession of the stall in question paying the licence fee at the old rate. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to claim the difference between the highest bid and the old rate of licence fee and thus claimed a decree for the difference amount of licence fee.

( 6 ) THE respondents and the said Mellagu ramulu filed the aforementioned separate s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document