JUDGMENT :

Defendant in suit filed the above second appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2022 in A.S.No.87 of 2017 on the file of Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2017 in O.S.No.81 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

2. Parties to this judgment are referred to as they are arrayed in the plaint.

3. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.81 of 2010 seeking ejectment of 1st defendant from the plaint schedule property; to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5; to direct the 1st defendant to pay arrears of Rs.82,128/-from December, 2008 to December, 2009 with subsequent interest and also direct the 1st defendant to pay future damages @ Rs.15,000/-per month from the date of suit till the date of vacating the property.

4. In the plaint, it was contended interalia that plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 are the family members and the schedule property is their property; that 1st defendant approached the plaintiff, defendants 2, 3 and husband of 4th defendant; that in 4th May, 1994, plaintiff, defendants 2, 3 and husband of defendant accepted to lease out the schedule property to 1st defendant to run hotel business; that they entered into a lease agreement dated 31.05.1994 for a period of five years; that 1st defendant started hotel business in the name and style of Hotel Swapna; that 1st defendant approached plaintiff, defendants 2, 3 and husband of 4th defendant for extension of lease for a further period of five years and accordingly, a fresh lease was 1st executed; that defendant agreed to pay Rs.5,500/-per month towards rent; that 1st defendant committed default in payment of shop rent to the plaintiff from December, 2008; that plaintiff needs the schedule property for personal occupation to run business; that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 21.04.2009 demanding 1st defendant to vacate and handover possession by 09.06.2009; that 1st defendant received notice and issued reply with false allegations; that defendants 2 to 5, being co-owners are not cooperating and hence, they were shown as defendants and thus, filed the suit.

5. Defendants 1, 3 and 5 filed separate written statements and 2nd defendant adopted the written statement filed by 3rd defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 though denied the averments in 5th the plaint, in a way supported the case of plaintiff. Defendant also reported no objection to decree the suit.

6. 1st Defendant filed written statement and contended interalia that for the notice issued by the plaintiff, he got issued a suitable reply notice; that originally schedule property belonged to Paluri Satyanarayana, father of plaintiff, defendants 2, 3 and father-in-law of 4th defendant; that during his lifetime, he constructed slabbed structure and the skeleton was leased out to Chandana Mohanarao of Chandra Brothers, Viskhapatna for a period of 30 years, but the said Chandana Mohanarao did not open the shop room in the said premises; that 1st defendant interfered into this affair and at his request, property was leased out to him; that plaintiff, defendants 2, 3 and husband of 4th defendant took an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-each; that they also promised to repay the amount invested by 1st defendant; that 1st defendant has been paying rents regularly; that even after issuance of notice, plaintiff collected rents from 1st defendant; that one of the plaintiff’s brother Paluri Satyanarayana filed suit O.S.No.41 of 1986 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram for partition and he also filed E.P.No.89 of 2004; that plaintiff suppressed the said facts; that A.S.No.75 of 1997 is still pending before and eventually prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the 1st defendant became trespasser and doing hotel business unauthorizedly in the plaint schedule property?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacate the 1st defendant from the plaint