( 1 ) THIS appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit is directed against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court in A. S. No. 820 of 1978 dated 9-2-1984 by which the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate judge, Vizianagaram, in O. S. No. 53 of 1975 dated 26-9-1978 was reversed, The suit was instituted by the appellants-plaintiffs for recovery of vacantpossession of the plaint schedule premises, G-33, Prince of Wales Market, Vizianagaram after removing the structures thereon, and for mesne profits in a sum of rs. 15,966-67 ps. for the period from 1-1-1970 to 26-4-1975 at the rate of rs. 250/- per month with interest thereon at 6% from 26-4-1975 and for determination of future mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit i. e. , 26- 4-1975 till the date of delivery of possession. The appellants-plaintiffs are three in number. The 1st plaintiff is a partnership firm. The 2nd plaintiff at the relevant time is a minor, represented by the 3rd plaintiff, his natural father and guardian.

( 2 ) IN brief it was averred in the plaint that the 3rd plaintiff was the original owner of the plaint schedule premises and by a registered sale deed dated 30-1-1972 a portion of the premises was sold in favour of the 2nd plaintiff and the other portion was relinquished by him in favour of the 2nd plaintiff by a registered deed of relinquishment dated 31-1-1972. The 2nd plaintiff although minor was admitted to the benefits of the 1st plaintiff-partnership firm on 1-10-1972 and the plaint schedule property therefore vests in the 1st appellants- 1st plaintiff. The respondent-defendant had taken on rent, the plaint schedule premises Rs. 40/- towards rent and Rs. 40/- to wards licence fee, aggregating rs. 80/- per month for a period of three years under a registered lease deed, ex. A-4 dated 31-3-1966 from 1-4-1966 to 31-3-1969 the tenancy being from month to month and the rent payable by the 3rd of every succeeding month. One of the terms of the lease deed, Ex. A-4 is that on the expiry of the three years period, the respondent-defendant should vacate the plaint schedule premises without notice by removing the structures thereon. The respondent-defendant paid rents only upto 31-12-1969 and defaulted in remitting rents for the subsequent period. The quit notice, Ex. A-5 dated 13-3-1969 was got issued by the appellants-plaintiffs calling upon the respondent-defendant to vacate the plaint schedule premises with effect from 1-4-1969. The suit O. S. Nb. 53 of 1975 itself was instituted in the year 1975 as prior to that there were rent control proceedings - before the Rent Control Court, it appears an application was filed by the respondent-defendant seeking permission of the Rent Controller to deposit the arrears of rent. But that application was rejected on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction since what was demised under Ex. A-4 was only a vacant site. Resisting the suit, it was pleaded by the respondent-defendant that the 3rd appellant-3rd plaintiff was not the real owner but only a trustee and the P. W. Matket was constructed by the Rajas of Vizianagaram for the benefits of the people of Vizianagaram and therefore, the 3rd appellant-3rd plaintiff had no right to alienate the property in favour of anybody. He also averred that the 1st appellant-1st plaintiff-firm is a non-existing one without transacting any business and therefore any conveyance of property in favour of such a non- existing firm is null and void. The further plea raised by him was that he became the tenant holding over since the rents paid by him upto 1969 have been accepted without raising any objection and therefore in the absence of fresh notice to quit, the suit was not maintainable.

( 3 ) ON the pleadings, as many as 17 issues were framed by the learned trial judge and the suit was decreed as prayed for holding inter alia that the 1st appellant- 1st plaintiff-firm is a genuine one and as per the lease deed Ex. A-4