The appellant filed O.S.No.255 of 2004 in the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against the respondent for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession thereof, as well as a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards arrears of rent. She pleaded that the schedule property, being house and surrounding plot of land was given to her husband, an employee in the Chemmumiahpet Gram Panchayat, by the Government, and that he constructed a house thereon. It is stated that after his death, the appellant succeeded to the property. She pleaded that the respondent was a tenant in the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.250/-, but he failed to pay the rent from January 2003 onwards, and started disputing title of the appellant.

The respondent filed a written-statement, opposing the suit. He disputed the right, title and entitlement of the appellant over the land. He denied the existence of relationship of tenant and landlady, between himself and the appellant. An objection was also raised as to non-joinder of the Government, as a defendant.

The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment dated 30-12-2005. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A.S.No.23 of 2006 in the Court of Family Judge-cum-Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was allowed on 04-06-2009. Hence this Second Appeal.

Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the lower Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the grounds, which were not even pleaded by the respondent. He contends that the respondent did not raise any plea as to the bar of the suit, or as to applicability of the A.P. Buildings, Lease, Rent and Eviction (Control) Act, (for short ‘the Act’), much less an issue was framed before the trial Court, and still, the lower Appellate Court passed its judgment on that ground. He further submits that the plea of the respondent was self-contradictory, in that, on the one hand, he pleaded that he was, himself, permitted to occupy the plot by the Government, and on the other hand, claimed devolution under a Will, marked as Ex.B-2. According to him, the appellant has proved her title to the property, and the inevitable conclusion is that the respondent must be evicted.

Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the property in question is said to have been assigned in favour of the husband of the appellant, by the Government and in a suit for declaration, the Authority, that assigned the land; is necessary party. He contends that the rent for the premises, as pleaded by the appellant, is Rs.250/-per month, and in that view of the matter, the provisions of the Act get attracted, and that being a pure question of law, the lower Appellate Court was certainly justified in taking that into account.

The appellant filed the suit, claiming the relief of,

a) declaration of title, in respect of the suit schedule property;

b) recovery of possession thereof; and c) recovery of a sum of Rs.3,000/-, as arrears of rent.

The appellant based her claim to the property upon a certificate, dated 29-05-1998, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa, in favour of her husband, and the subsequent enjoyment of the property. It was pleaded that the respondent is her tenant. The latter, on the other hand, asserted title in himself. He rested his claim on two events, viz., the permission accorded to him, by the Government, to occupy the land, and devolution under a Will, dated 16-01-1998, said to have been executed by one, late, Chinnakka. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

1) Whether the plaintiff and her husband Bonasi Venkatasubbaiah occupied the suit schedule vacant site and erected hut and are in possession of the same as alleged by the plaintiff ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule house?

3) Whether the plaintiff preferred her title