M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff preferred this second appeal assailing the decree and judgment dated 2.4.2013 of the learned District Judge, Guntur made in AS No. 231 of 2012 whereby the learned District Judge while dismissing the said appeal had confirmed the decree and judgment dated 6.6.2012 of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur made in OS No. 593 of 2009 filed for eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule property and for delivery of the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and for recovery of arrears of rents till the date of eviction.

(a). At the time of admission of this second appeal, this Court had taken note of the substantial questions of law raised in grounds A and B in the memorandum of grounds of appeal. The said substantial questions of law read as under :-'The view taken by lower appellate Court of landlord and tenant cannot be converted into a suit for title and recovery of possession since there is no factual foundation for such claim and apart from that plaintiff claimed arrears of rent is erroneous in law and in fact as the factual foundation was laid in Para III-A of the plaint and even otherwise appellant/plaintiff being the paternal grandson of late Venkatamma, who is the original owner of the suit schedule property and in view of the fact that appellant's father Tirupathaih predeceased his mother, succeeded to the estate of late Venkatamma under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act being Class-I heir and this factual position is admitted by all and as such the view of the learned District Judge is clearly perverse to the core. (B) The learned Judge below lost sight of the fact that any suit would be laid in a competent civil Court under Section 26 of CPC which is a 'procedural law'. Transfer of Property Act and Specific Relief Act are the substantive laws which create rights and duties, which may or may not have provided forum and the question of filing suit under T.P. Act and not filing the same under Specific Relief Act as observed by learned Judge below does not arise." [Reproduced verbatim]

(b). The sum and substance of the substantial questions of law may be stated, in brief, as follows : "Though the plaintiff/ appellant had failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in the suit for eviction and arrears of rent, considering that the title of the plaintiff is proved in respect of the plaint schedule property, the Court below ought to have treated the suit of the plaintiff as one for recovery of possession based on title and ought to have decreed the suit of the plaintiff and ordered eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule property and that the Court below had erred in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of the possession and arrears of rent on the foundation that the defendants are tenants cannot be converted into a suit for recovery of possession and that the Court below had committed error in law and in facts in not pronouncing the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants on the basis of title of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property."

2(a). To adjudicate the lis and answer the substantial questions of law, it is necessary to mention, in brief, the history of the case. The plaintiff had filed the suit against the defendants for eviction of the defendants and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for arrears of rents and also for grant of future mesne profits and other reliefs. In the suit, the plaintiff had inter alia urged as under : "One Annapureddy Venkatamma is the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff. She had purchased an extent of 212 4/9 square yards in 4th lane, Gunturivari Thota, Guntur under a registered sale deed dated 21.4.1966, a copy of which is exhibited as Exhibit Al. One Tirupathaiah is her son. S