Honble SINHA, J.–This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 19.1.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the Appellant herein from a judgment and order dated 3.6.2002 passed by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No. 307 of 1998 was dismissed.

(2). The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The Appellant herein was a tenant of the predecessors-in-interest of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Allegedly, an oral agreement of sale was entered into by and between the Appellant and the Respondents for a total consideration of Rs. 80,000/-. Allegedly, for execution of the deed of sale approval of the Ceiling Authorities was necessary wherefor the draft deed of sale was filed before the Ceiling Authorities. The said approval is said to have been granted in the year 1977. According to Appellant, the factum of grant of approval of the said deed of sale was not conveyed and only in the year 1977 he came to learn thereabout whereafter the said suit for specific performance of the contract was filed. During the pendency of the suit, the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 herein by reason of a deed of sale dated 10.3.1998.

(3). A written statement was filed on 20.07.1998. In the said written statement, however, no counter-claim was filed. The Appellant herein filed an application for amendment of plaint inter alia questioning the alienation by the original defendants in favour of defendant No. 6 and praying for declaration that the deed of sale dated 10.3.1988 executed by defendant Nos. 2 to 5 in favour of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein is null and void.

(4). However, subsequently on or about 6.11.1995 a second written statement was field wherein a counter-claim was made which is as under :

``i) This defendant submits that the plaintiffs who are the tenants of a defendants since, denied the tenancy and the relationship of Landlord and Tenant and falsely set up the plea of oral agreement of sale have forfeited the right to continue in possession, as tenants in the suit premises and the plaintiffs are liable to be vacated from the suit premises as persons not having right any more to be in possession of the suit property. Hence, the Counter-claim for delivery of possession of the suit property. The defendants are also entitled for mean (sic) profits from the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 1500/- from 10.11.1992 i.e. for the past three years and also in future.

ii) The cause of action for Counter-claim arouse on the day plaintiff No. 1 filed suit and the plaintiff denied the defendants title by setting up false agreement of sale. The Counter-claim is, therefore, within time.

iii) These defendants are paying a Court-fee of Rs. 2626/- on the 3/4th Market Value of Rs. 80,000/- framed in the plaint. Under Section 24-A of A.P. Court-fees and Suit Valuation Act, which is proper and sufficient, another Court-fee of Rs. 2466/- paid of u/S. 20 of APCF & S.U. on the claim of Rs. 54,000/- profit claimed for past 3 years i.e. from 10.11.92 to 9.11.95 which is proper and sufficient.

iv) It is, therefore, prayed that the Counter-claim be allowed by granting the following relief :

(A) The plaintiff be directed to deliver the defendants vacant and actual possession of the suit property.

(B) The defendants be directed to pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 54,000/- as mesne profits.

(C) The defendants be directed to pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 1500/- pr month as further mesne profits from 10.11.95 to the date of eviction.

(D) The defendants be directed to pay to the plaintiffs the costs of the counter-claim.

(5).The Appellant herein in his replication asserted :

``The Plaintiffs submit that the relief of counter-claim for delivery of possession of the property is not maintainable before this Honble Court, as the suit premises is attracted by the provisions of A.P. (L.R.E.) Act as there was relationship of landlord and tenant prior to agreement of sale and the rent last paid was at Rs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document