G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE respondents in the eviction petition are the petitioners in this revision petition. The landlady is the respondent. The landlady filed the present eviction petition in the year 1984 as she was prevented from prosecuting the proceedings in a Civil Court by virtue of the striking down of provisions of Section 32 (b) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) as ultra vires by the supreme Court.

( 2 ) THE case that is set up by the landlady is that she has let out the suit premises to only Jamunadas, son of Popatlal Parekh and not to any Firm and the premises has been leased out and it is exclusively in occupation of the 2nd respondent in the eviction petition, who is second petitioner herein, contrary to the terms agreed to between the parties. She filed O. S. No. 1600 of 1976 on the file of II Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad only against Jamuna Das and during the pendency of the suit, Smt. Vanita v. Parekh, the 2nd petitioner herein filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C. on the ground that herself and Jamunadas are both partners of the firm peruel Toys Agency . After d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document