All these matters are connected and are substantially between the same parties. Since they have been heard together, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts, which are material, in S.A.No.704 of 2002 are set out hereunder, as the decision in the second appeal would have a bearing on both the revision petitions.

SA.No.704 of 2002:

2. Brief resume of facts is as follows:

(a) Appellant is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.5027 of 1993 before the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, who are co-owners of the suit property. The respondents 3 to 5 herein, who were arrayed as defendants 3 to 5 in the suit, are the subsequent purchasers. For the sake of convenience, the appellant/plaintiff is referred to as tenant and the first defendant is referred to as the landlord and defendants 3 to 5 as purchasers.

(b) The premises bearing No.20-4-1189 was owned by the first defendant. To the South of this property there was an open land belonging to defendants 1 and 2, which was leased out to the plaintiff/tenant under Ex.A2 dated 01.01.1972. The tenant was allowed to take up construction on the open land and he constructed a mulgi (shop) on the ground floor bearing No.20-4-1189/3 as well as a room on the first floor thereof. The tenant was paying rent at Rs.75/- per month up to August 1987. Thereafter, under Ex.A4 notice dated 12.10.1987, the first defendant/landlord asked the tenant to pay the rents only to him. Consequently, a rental deed Ex.A3 dated 01.11.1987 for eleven months initially was executed by the tenant in favour of the first defendant and clause 22 of the said deed is sought to be enforced in the suit and as well as this second appeal. It is, therefore, appropriate to extract clause 22 of the said deed, as under:

“That if the landlord wants to sell the Mulgi the tenant shall alone be entitled to purchase the same and the landlord is bound to sell it to the tenant in view of his long period of tenancy.”

(c) The said rental deed worked up to June 1993 without any misunderstandings. Then, on 06.07.1993, the tenant filed an injunction suit being O.S.No.2317 of 1993 before the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the defendants 1 and 2 for perpetual injunction alleging that defendants 1 and 2 are trying to alienate suit property contrary to clause 22, referred to above. The tenant obtained ad interim injunction under Ex.A13. It appears that defendants 1 and 2 refused service of the said injunction through bailiff as per report Ex.A14 dated 08.07.1993. The tenant thereupon gave notice Ex.A15 dated 12.07.1993 and on the basis of the report of affixture of summons, the first defendant was set ex parte on 19.07.1993 and on 30.07.1993 the temporary injunction was made absolute. The tenant claims that the rent sent by him by money order dated 17.08.1993 was refused by the first defendant and under Ex.A18 dated 26.10.1993, defendants 1 and 2 informed the tenant of the sale of the suit schedule property to defendants 3 to 5 on 17.07.1993 and attorned the tenancy to defendants 3 to 5.

(d) The tenant gave a reply Ex.A21 dated 10.11.1993 complaining violation of clause 22 and seeking its enforcement filed the suit O.S.No.5027 of 1993 before the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for mandatory injunction against all the defendants directing them to execute registered sale deed in favour of the tenant in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. premises bearing No.20-4-1189/3 admeasuring 98 sq. feet.

(e) On contest, the said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 19.01.1998 and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.61 of 1998 under judgment and decree dated 10.12.2001 giving rise to the present second appeal.

3. One of the main findings against the tenant is that a suit of this nature for mandatory injunction is not ma