Establishing a landlord-tenant relationship is essential for eviction; mere ownership does not suffice without proof of tenancy.

JUDGMENT :

1. The second appeal No.209 of 2000 under section 100 of the CPC is filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs impugning the common judgment dated 29.07.1999 in A.S.No.62 of 1990 of the learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur.

2. The second appeal No.561 of 2000 under section 100 of the CPC is filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs impugning the common judgment dated 29.07.1999 in A.S.No.72 of 1990 of the learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

A wife and husband together purchased 180 square yards of site in AT Agraharam in Survey No.91/B on 23.02.1983 for Rs.5,000/- from one Mr. Sastri under Ex.A12 registered sale dead. They filled O.S.No.475 of 1985 against Sri Talapati Chennaiah. In the plaint, it was alleged that the plaintiffs after purchasing the vacant site raised two thatched houses. In May, 1983, they leased out the property to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.30/-. The tenant paid rent for one month. He committed default thereafter i.e., from 01.06.1983 onwards. Therefore, they got issued Ex.A13 quit notice calling upon him to vacate the property by the end of June, 1983. Defendant failed to vacate it.Therefore, the suit was laid seeking the reliefs of

1. For ejectment and delivery of possession

2. Recovery of Rs.690/- towards arrear rent

3. Future mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of realization

4. The defendant/ Sri T.Chennaiah contested the suit. In his written statement, he stated that there was 800 square yards of poramboke land in Sy.No.91/2B. He and others occupied it decades ago. He has been in possession of this property for more than 27 years. When these plaintiffs were obstructing his possession and enjoyment, he had already filed O.S.No.214 of 1984 and after due enquiry an interim injunction was also granted in his favour. That the plaintiffs as well as their predecessors in title were not in possession of this property and did not have any title over this property. The suit is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration of a title. That this defendant had perfected his title by adverse possession also. He sought dismissal of the suit.

5. At about the time when O.S.No.475 of 1985 referred above was filed, another set of parties with similar factual background filed O.S.No.677 of 1984. Both suits were pending before learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. Both the suits were consolidated, and common evidence was recorded. We are here concerned with only O.S.No.475 of 1985 in which the following issues were settled by the learned trial court:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable without seeking for declaration of the plaintiff's title?

2. Whether the landlord and tenant relationship pleaded by the plaintiff is true?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

6. The issues in the other suit were also settled. Together in both the suits, there was the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and DWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A14 and Exs.B1 to B10. By a common judgement dated 27.02.1990. the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur granted the decree for eviction in both the suits while dismissing the claims for recovery of arrear rent and future mesne profits. The operative portion of the judgement in O.S.No.475 of 1985 reads as below:

“In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises within one month from the date of decree, falling which the plaintiffs will be at liberty to evict the defendant through process of court. The relief for recovery of rent and future profits stand dismissed.”

7. In its judgement, the trial court recorded the following findings ---

• That by virtue of Ex.A12, plaintiffs in O.S.No.475 of 1985 established the title, however, plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant was their tenant.

• That the defendant failed to prove title by adverse possession.

After recording such findings, it passed the judgement in t