P. A. CHOUDHARY, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal was filed by the first defendant and the legal representatives of the second defendant. The first defendant was sued in the trade name of M/s. Polutri Subba Reddy, P. Seshagiri Rao and Company being represented by partner Polutri Subha Reddy. The second defendant was sued in his individual name. the suit was for ejectment, for mesne profits and for damages for use and occupation.

( 2 ) THE second defendant had taken the suit premises belonging to the plaintiff on lease for a fixed period of one year ending with the Diwali day. the plaintiffs complaint was that after the expiry of that period of one year the defendants were continuing in occupation of the premises paying rents to the landlord without vacating the suit premises. The plaintiff, therefore, issued quit notice on 4-2-1974 terminating the tenancy by the last day of February, 1974 and filed the present suit for ejectment, for mesne profits and for damages.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants on multiple grounds. the second defendant filed a written statement. The second defendant contended that the suit premises was governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act and that therefore, the civil court had no jurisdiction. Secondly, his contention was that the first defendant in whose behalf he took the suit premises on lease as managing partner, was dissolved on 31-12-1969 with effect from 1-1-1970, and that thereafter it was new firm that came into existence of which he still continued to be its managing partner. His contention was that from 1-1-1970 onwards the second new partnership was the tenant and that therefore the quit notice given by the plaintiff to the second defendant as managing partner of the first defendant was invalid. While the suit was pending trial, the second defendant died and his legal representatives, that is to say, his wife and children were brought on record after contest as defendants.

( 4 ) THE trial court in all framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of ejectment,? 2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? 3. Whether the first defendant is a tenant as contended by the plaintiff ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages at the rate of Rs. 400. 00 per month? On 1-4-1976 the following additional issued were framed by the trail court:- 1. Whether the defendants 3 to 7 have any interest in the suit schedule property,? 2. Whether the defendants 3 to 7 are not the legal representatives of the second defendant? 3. Whether. Ramireddi and U. Krishnarao are necessary and proper parties to the suit? On 7-2-1977 the court framed one more additional issue. 1. Whether there is proper and valid quit notice in the suit?

( 5 ) THE trial court answered all the issued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Against that decree and judgment, M/s. Potluri Subbareddi. P. Seshagirirao and Company, represented by the partner Sri Potluri Subbareddi being dead, represented by P. Venkataratnamma and five others had preferred A. S. No. 55/77 to the court of the learned Subordinate Judge. Vijayawada. Before the learned Subordinate Judge the agreement that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, as the suit building was governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act was reiterated. Secondly it was also argued that it was the second defendant that was the tenant under the plaintiff, and not the first defendant, and that at my rate after the dissolution of the 1st defendant firm, the new firm should have been sued, Thirdly, it was argued that defendants 3 to 7 were not the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant. It was also urged that there was no proper quit notice, as the plaintiffs notice did not demand defendants 1 and 2 to give vacant possession of the suit premises on the midnight of 28-2-1974 but merely asked the defendants 1 and 2 to vacate the plaint Schedule premises on or before 1-3-1974

Click Here to Read the rest of this document