Point of law: A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents, and, involves a debatable legal issue.

JUDGMENT :

M. VENKATA RAMANA, J.

1. The respondents in A.S. No. 7 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada are the appellants.

2. The 1st appellant is no more and the 2nd appellant was brought on record as his Legal Representative during pendency of the appeal before the first appellate Court. The respondents were the respondents in the above appeal.

3. The 1st respondent initially laid a suit for eviction against the deceased 1st appellant and the 2nd respondent in O.S. No. 269 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. During pendency of this suit, the 2nd respondent was transposed as the 2nd plaintiff.

4. The case of the respondents is that they purchased the plaint schedule property from rightful owners under a registered sale-deed dated 06.02.2002 and by the date of this sale, the deceased 1st appellant was in occupation of this property as tenant. This tenancy according to them was attorned in their favour and the agreed rent then was Rs. 1500/- per month. Stating that the deceased 1st appellant failed to deliver possession of this property as agreed upon by 31.03.2002, to enable them to use this premises for their personal use and occupation and that the deceased 1st appellant failed to pay the rents as agreed upon, who went on making structural alterations to this property, they got issued notices on 07.03.2002 and on 06.03.2002 separately terminating his tenancy with effect from 01.04.2002. On such basis, they laid the suit for eviction and also sought damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month.

5. The deceased 1st appellant resisted the claim of the respondents mainly contending that he had purchased the plaint schedule property under an agreement for sale dated 25.09.1983 from Sri. Kanchiraju Lalitha Kumari and others for a consideration of Rs. 23,000/- that he paid Rs. 8,000/- on the date of entering into this agreement and later paid Rs. 14,330/- on different dates. Thus, the deceased 1st appellant claimed that he was put in possession of this property in part performance of this contract and that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of this contract as well as to obtain a sale-deed since he had paid the entire sale consideration. He denied the alleged termination of his tenancy by the respondents by issuing legal notices and that the sale-deed claimed by the respondents was brought into existence by them in collusion with Sri. K. Balasubrahmanyam and others to defeat his rights under the aforesaid agreement for sale. Thus, he questioned the maintainability of the suit for eviction and also on the ground that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit against him since the Rent Control Act is applicable as per the claim of the respondents.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the trail Court settled the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for eviction of the 1st defendant from the plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property?

3. To what relief?”

7. The 1st respondent examined herself as PW-1. The husband of the 2nd respondent was examined as PW-3 and one of the vendors of these respondents under the original of Ex.A1 sale-deed was examined as PW-2, while the respondents relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 in support of their contention. The deceased 1st appellant examined himself as DW-1 while relying on the testimony of DW-2 to DW-4 as well as Ex.B1 to B13 in support of his contention.

8. On the material and evidence, the learned trial Judge rejected the defence of the appellants disbelieving the agreement for sale dated 25.09.1983 and holding that the tenancy was terminated, directed his eviction from the plaint schedule property by the decree and judgment dated 02.07.2010.

9. Against this decree and judgment of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, A.S. No. 7 of 2012 pr