C.R.P. 2623 of 2011 is a revision presented under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 08-06-2011 of the learned IX Additional District & Sessions (Fast Track) Court, Visakhapatnam, rejecting I.A.No.2350 of 2010 (an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC r/w Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice, seeking amendment of the plaint) in O.S.No.212 of 2007.

2. C.R.P. 2629 of 2011 is a revision presented under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the ‘Rent Control Act’) directed against the order dated 18-04-2011 of the Learned Rent Controller Cum IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, rejecting I.A.No.198 of 2010 (also an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) seeking amendment of the counter in R.C.C.No. 41 of 2007.

3. T.R.C.M.P.No.453 of 2011 is presented under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of O.S.No.212 of 2007 from the court of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, to the court of the Principal or any other Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

4. All the above proceedings arise out of the orders passed by the respective courts below rejecting applications of the revision petitioners, filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint in the suit or of the counter in the rent control case, as the case may be.

5. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior counsel instructed by Sri. B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners in all the matters; Sri. P.P. Rao, Learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. P. Balaji Verma, in C.R.P.No. 2629 of 2011; and Sri. S.R. Ashok, Learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.P. Balaji Verma in C.R.P.No.2623 of 2011 and in Tr.C.M.P. No.453 of 2011, for the respondents. For the sake of convenience, the revision petitioners are referred to as tenants; and the respondent (who is the same in all three matters) as the landlord, hereinafter.

C.R.P.No.2623 of 2011 :

6. This revision arises out of O.S.No.212 of 2007 filed by the tenants seeking (i) a direction to the landlord to renew the lease for a further period of thirty-three years (entered into initially under a registered lease deed, dated 30-03-1974, in respect of property bearing Municipal No.51-1-4, Seethammadara, T.S.No.50, Visakhapatnam Municipality), vide clause -3(vi) of the lease deed, on a rental of Rs.10,000/- per month or such other sum as the Court considers reasonable; (ii) to direct the landlord (the first defendant) to join the tenants in applying for exemption of the schedule property from the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 or to extend the exemption granted in G.O.427, dated 01-03-1978 for a period co-terminus with the extended lease; (iii) for a direction that in case the landlord fails to join the tenants in applying for exemption and register the lease within three months from the date of the decree, the Court should itself execute and register the lease at the expense of the landlord and after applying to the ULC authorities to grant exemption under the ULC Act; (iv) for an injunction restraining the landlord and his agents, etc., from interfering with the tenants’ peaceful enjoyment of the property; (v) for an injunction restraining the landlord from creating third party interests in the schedule property by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, gift or other forms of alienation; and (vi) for costs and other incidental reliefs.

The case of the tenants–plaintiffs in O.S.No.212 of 2007 :

7. In the context of the issues relevant to this revision, the averments in the plaint are :

(a)The first plaintiff is the Chief Editor of Eenadu, a Telugu daily newspaper and the second plaintiff an incorporated company and the publisher of the daily. Desirous of starting a newspaper edition from Visakhapatnam, the first plaintiff negotiated with the landlord (the first defendant) who was owning about 9,600 Sq.mts./11,000 Sq.yds. of vacant site togeth