( 1 ) THESE two Second Appeals are filed by the defendant in o. S. No. 66 of 1977 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, at warangal.

( 2 ) THE respondent filed the suit for the relief of eviction of the appellant and any person claiming through him, from the suit schedule property and for recovery of mesne profits, for a period of three years, immediately preceding the date of filing the suit. He pleaded that the appellant is in possession of the suit schedule property with his permission, and when he was asked to vacate it, the respondent claimed that he purchased the land from one Sarvi rajaiah, through unregistered sale deed, dated 19-04-1964 and the said Rajaiah in turn, had purchased it from the respondent, through a similar deed dated 15-05-1960. It was also pleaded that the appellant did not produce any documents, even when required to do so. The respondent claimed that the suit schedule land is his ancestral property and it was mortgaged in favour of g. Venkataiah, somewhere in the year 1954, but was redeemed on 05-05-1953. He contended that the appellant has no right or title over the suit schedule property and that he is liable to be evicted. The appellant filed a written-statement stating that he purchased the land from Sarvi Rajaiah in the year 1964 and that his vendor purchased the land from the respondent in the year 1960. He has also taken the plea of adverse possession. Subseauently, the appellant got the written-statement amended. In addition to the pleas taken by him earlier, he stated that he is entitled for the protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (for short the T. P. Act ). He further pleaded that he is a protected tenant as defined under A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act (for short the tenancy Act), and in that view of the matter, the suit is not maintainable in law.

( 3 ) THE trial Court held that the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of Section 53-A of the T. P. Act, and that he did not perfect his title, by adverse possession. However, it dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant is the protected tenant, in respect of the suit land and that the suit barred under the Tenancy Act. The respondent filed A. S. No. 140 of 1987 in the Court of Additional District judge, Warangal, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit. The appellant filed A. S. No. 154 of 1987 in the same Court assailing the findings recorded by the trial Court, against him. Through a common judgment dated 29-08-1992, the Lower Appellate Court allowed A. S. No. 140 of 1987 and dismissed A. S. No. 154 of 1987. S. A. No. 96 of 1994 is filed against the judgment and decree in a. S. No. 140 of 1987, and S. ANo. 119 of 1994 is filed against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 154 of 1987.

( 4 ) SRI K. Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent admitted that the appellant is the protected tenant in respect of the suit land, even before the suit came to be filed. He contends that the respondent has got issued a notice dated 22-02-1977, marked as Ex. A-5, wherein it was clearly stated that the appellant is the protected tenant, and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for the Lower Appellate Court in reversing the important finding recorded by the trial Court. Learned counsel points out that once the record disclosed that the land is the subject-matter of a protected tenancy, the only option for the respondent was, to have recourse to the steps under the Tenancy act and that the suit is barred. He further contends that even assuming that there is any doubt, as to the protected tenancy of the appellant, as evidenced by Ex. B-1, his plea of adverse possession, or the one, under Section 53-A of the T. P. Act ought to have been upheld.

( 5 ) SRI Ghanshyam Das Mandhani, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant did not take the plea that he is the protected tenant, in re