JUDGMENT:

The unsuccessful defendants filed this Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the decree and judgment, dated 07.07.2003 of the District Judge, Nellore passed in A.S No.77 of 2001.

2. By the said decree and judgment, the learned District Judge, Nellore allowed the First Appeal with costs setting aside the trial Court’s judgment dated 16.07.2011 of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore passed in O.S.No.813 of 1996 filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.15,000/- as arrears of rent from 1.10.1995 to 31.10.1996 and for recovery of damages of Rs.5250/- for use and occupation of the plaint schedule building by the defendants from 1.8.1996 to 31.10.1996 at the rate of Rs.1750/- per month.

3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit for convenience and clarity.

4. Brief facts of the case are that :

The plaintiff is the owner of the premises of the subject schedule property. The defendant is a partnership firm represented by all the three partners has been the tenant of the plaintiff in relation to the schedule mentioned premises. After the expiry of the lease period the partners of defendant firm agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- for the schedule mentioned premises and paid the rent till June 1994 and from 1.7.1994 they have been paying monthly rent of Rs.1500/- for the suit premises and on 4.7.1997 Mr.Akmal Hussainy, one of the partners of the defendant gave certificate that the monthly rent i.e., being paid for the suit premises i.e., Rs.1500/-. The tenancy between the plaintiff and defendant is from month to month. The plaintiff got issued registered notice on 10.7.1995 through his advocate to Mr. Sd.Althaf Hussainy one of the partners of the firm, terminating the tenancy in favour of the defendant in relation to the schedule mentioned premises by 31.7.1996 asking him to deliver possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff on 1.7.1996 and he received the said notice. In fact the defendants are partners in the plaintiff firm even now and they were paying a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- till June 1994 and they have been paying Rs.1500/- p.m. from 1.7.1994 and the certificate issued by Akmal Hussainy on 4.7.1995 is not concocted and the defendants have committed default regarding payment of rent from October 1995. As such the defendants are bound to deliver the possession of the suit premises and also liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule premises and for arrears of rent and the defendants are not statutory tenants and the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act does not apply to this case and the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants in relation to the subject property is governed by the Provisions of Transfer of Property Act.

5. The defendant No.2 filed the written statement which was adopted by defendant No.3 contending inter alia that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in limini. He denied all the allegations made in the plaint and contended that originally the plaintiff leased out the plaint schedule building to the defendants on 1.8.1986 to run their business in partnership of selling readymade garments under the name and style of ‘Fashion Wear’ and the defendants paid an interest free advance of Rs.4,000/- to the plaintiff. Originally the monthly rent was Rs.500/- from 1.8.1986 to 31.7.1989 and thereafter the monthly rent was Rs.650/- from 1989 to 31.7.1991 and the same continues at the rate of Rs.650/- p.m. and the defendants paid good will of Rs.35,000/- to the erstwhile tenant of Ramesh Book Shop and Greeting shop owner prior to 1.8.1986 and secured vacant possession from him. The 3rd defendant Akmal Hussainy retired from partnership business in the year 1990 and subsequently defendant No.1 also retired in June 1995 and defendant No.2 alone is now carrying on business as proprietor and paying all the charges without fail. A