This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant in O.S.No.677 of 1984 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for ejectment. The suit was decreed as prayed for. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant preferred A.S.No.61 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur. The appeal was also dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the appellate Court, the defendant preferred the present appeal by raising the following points as substantial questions of law to be considered by this Court:

a) Whether the plaintiff’s suit for ejectment can be decreed without asking for declaration of title or amendment of the plaint when the defendant raised a defence that they are in adverse possession of the property since last 25 years and neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors are having any subsisting title?

b) Whether the lower Courts can order for eviction even after finding that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant.

c) Whether the lower courts can pass eviction decree without reading the relevant portion of the documents and written statement which amount to ‘no reading at all?

3. The plea of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the plaint schedule property and he constructed zinc sheeted shed and let out the same to the defendant for Rs.20/- per month. The defendant paid rent for one month and subsequently he committed default in payment of rent. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a termination notice against the defendant, as there was no reply from him. Hence, the termination of tenancy is confirmed. But, the defendant continued to be in possession as an unauthorised occupant. As the defendant and others filed a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff could not get him vacated, therefore, he filed a suit for ejection.

4. The defendant did not plea that he is the owner of the property. He contended that he occupied the land along with others about 27 years back and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and he perfected title by adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession was rejected by the trial Court by observing that except two receipts there is no material placed by the defendant to say that he is in possession of the property for more than 12 years uninterruptedly to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The cist receipts did not connect to the property. Therefore, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the defendant failed to prove either title or adverse possession over the property in question. Hence, he has no right over the property and accordingly the suit was decreed directing eviction of the defendant from the suit property. The appellate Court also concurred with the view expressed by the tiral Court and dismissed the

appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff filed the suit for ejection by treating the defendant as a tenant but the trial Court as well as the appellate Court while observing that there is no landlord and tenancy relation ship between the parties ordered eviction of the defendant, which is not based on the pleadings of the parties. Therefore, the decrees and judgments passed by the Courts below are illegal and they cannot be accepted, In support of his contention, he relied on certain judgments.

i) In MIR NIYAMATH ALI KHAN V. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS(1) the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

“Normally the Court will not grant relief to the plaintiff on a case for which there was no foundation laid in the pleadings and which the defendant was not called upon to meet. But when the alternative case which the plaintiff could have made was admitted by the defendant either in his written statement or in his evidence and the parties adduced evidence r