P. KODDANDA RAMAYYA, J.

( 1 ) A short and interesting question is raised in this second Appeal i. e. , whether the Civil Court can grant a bare declaration that the defendants are only sub-tenants leaving the parties for the relief of eviction to the Special Tribunals constituted under A. P. Buldings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 15 of 1960 (hereinafter called the Act .)

( 2 ) THE case arose this way. The plaintiff filed impleading two of his tenants the present suit out of which this appeal arose tor perpetual injunction restraining them from subletting all or any portion of the mulgi-bearing municipal No. 15-2-280, Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad. Defendants 1 and 2 are tenants. The 1st defendant died and his legal representatives were added as defendants 3 to 8. The suit is filed on 17-4-1976 for an injunction restraining the defendants from letting the property to the tenants. In fact the plaintiff filed an application for eviction on 20-7-1976 against these defendants before the Special Tribunals under the above act on the ground that they are guilty of subletting.

( 3 ) WRITTEN Statement was filed on 21-10-76 denying subletting but contending they entered into a partnership and they are carrying on a joint business with the third parties but not a case of subletting.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court found that the contention, that the defendants entered into a partnership with third parties but never sublet the premises cannot be accepted and held they were guilty of subletting but held that the plaintiff is at liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies against the defendants and their subtenants if the defendants do not evict the subtenants within a month and with this direction the suit is decreed for perpetual injunction as prayed for.

( 5 ) AGAINST this judgment and decree the defendants filed appeal. The appellate Court while agreeing with the trial Court that the defendants sublet the premises held that the relief of perpetual injunction cannot be granted but the plaintiff s suit was decreed declaring that the defendants 1 and 2 sub-leased the suit premises to M/s. Sentil Dall Mill and M/s. P. A. Tangavelu Company contrary to the terms of agreement of tenancy covered by Ex. A-1 and that the said tenancy does not bind the plaintiff. Against this judgment and decree the present appeal is filed.

( 6 ) BOTH the learned counsel agreed that the injunction cannot be granted and the direction of the trial Court that the tenant should vacate within a month is also unsustainable but the counsel are at variance on the question whether the decree for declaration is sustainable. The plaintiff s counsel maintained that the provisions of the Act do not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the suit as originally framed and filed is well founded and the subsequent induction of the sub-tenants by the defendants should not oust the jurisdiction granted by the appellate court is well founded. On the otherhand the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the suit is laid for injunction alone and once the injunction cannot be granted the relief of declaration declaring that the sub-tenancy was created and the same is not binding on the plaintiff, is wholly outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as the Special Tribunal constituted under the above act, is the only competent authority to make the equiry and at any rate when such application for eviction was already filed the court should not exercise ihe d;scretion of granting a declaratory judgment in favour of the plaintiff so that the proceedings before the Special Tribunal will be concluded automatically without any need for enquiry and such relief cannot be granted in the present suit without canvassing the finding recorded against the defendants regarding the sub-tenancy he urged that the courts below erred in recording the findings but should have directed the plaintiff to pursue his remedies under the special Act.

( 7 ) IT is clear that the plaintiff s counsel is right in sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document