L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

The sole defendant in O.S.No.901 of 1985 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed these two appeals.

The deceased 1st respondent filed the suit for eviction of the appellant from the premises in question. It was pleaded that the property bearing Nos.5-8-615 and 5-8-615/1 comprising of two mulgies at Abids, Hyderabad, was owned by Sri A.K. Babu Khan and in a preliminary decree for partition passed in O.S.No.38 of 1964 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the property fell to her share. It was stated that the appellant was the tenant of the premises and in view of the allotment of the property in the partition, the tenancy was attorned to her. According to the 1st respondent, the rent for both the mulgies was Rs.1,300/-per month and ever since 04.10.1998, new tenancy was created and the rent is being paid from month to month.

The 1st respondent got issued a notice, dated 10.04.1985, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and required the appellant to vacate the premises. Through reply, dated 24.05.1985, the appellant stated that the lease in respect of the two mulgies was separate and individual, with rent of Rs.650/-per mulgi, and that there was an offer by the original owner, to sell the property for a consideration of Rs.1,64,000/-. He further pleaded that a sum of Rs.5,000/-has been paid under receipt, dated 08.06.1982, and that the 1st respondent has no right to terminate the lease. Other contentions were also advanced.

In view of the stand taken by the appellant in the reply notice, the 1st respondent filed O.S.No.901 of 1985, for eviction and mesne profits. The contents of the notice, dated 10.04.1985, were repeated in the plaint, whereas, those in the reply were repeated in the written statement. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 12.12.1996. Apart from directing eviction of the appellant, it has directed ascertainment of mesne profits. C.C.C.A.No.23 of 1987 is filed challenging the decree in that suit.

The 1st respondent died and his legal representatives were brought on record. They filed I.A.No.1582 of 2000 before the trial Court for ascertainment of mesne profits. After hearing both parties, the trial Court passed order, dated 10.03.2003, determining the mesne profits at Rs.4,000/- per month, with effect from June, 1985. C.C.C.A.No.331 of 2003 is filed against the said order.

Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the premises comprised of two mulgies and though they were owned by the same individual, the lease in respect of one mulgi commenced in 1930, and in respect of other, it commenced in 1950. He submits that the rent was being paid separately for both the mulgies and the same arrangement continued even when the tenancy was attorned to the 1st respondent. Learned counsel submits that a specific objection was raised as to the very maintainability of the suit, on the ground that the rent for each of the mulgies is Rs.650/- and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) would apply to the same. He submits that the trial Court erred in treating the tenancy as composite one. It is also pleaded that the fact that there existed an agreement for sale of the property by the original owner, was not taken into account. As to the mesne profits, the learned counsel submits that the trial Court was not at all justified in enhancing the amount from Rs.1,300/- to Rs.4,000/- and the evidence on record does not support the finding of the trial Court.

Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that long before exchange of notices, there exists an arrangement between both the parties, evidenced through letter, dated 04.10.1987, marked as Ex.A1, which is to the effect that the rent for both the mulgies shall be Rs.1300/- per month and that th