JUDGMENT:

Claim petitioner in E.A.No.27 of 2018 in E.P.No.16 of

2018 in O.S.No.55 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam, filed the present second appeal.

2. 2nd Respondent herein (tenant) filed suit O.S.No.55 of 2016 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam against the 1st respondent herein (landlord) seeking injunction in respect of plaint schedule property i.e. RCC Slabbed shop bearing Door No.12-56/9, situated near Rythu Bazar, covered by S.No.29/2 of Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

3. 2nd Respondent herein pleaded that 1st respondent herein is the owner of the property and 2nd respondent herein obtained the schedule property from the husband of 1st respondent on lease and has been running vegetable business in the said shop. Later, they entered into a lease agreement dated 12.03.2012 for a period of 24 months on a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-. It was further contended that defendant received Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff towards interest free refundable advance. After expiry of lease, another lease agreement was entered into between the parties on 09.09.2015 for the period from 09.09.2015 to 08.08.2016 on a monthly rent of Rs.5,500/-. As the matter stood thus, 2nd respondent herein filed suit against the 1st respondent seeking injunction. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat and the same was settled in L.S.A.No.3 of 2017 in O.S.No.55 of 2016 dated 21.01.2017. As per the award passed by the Lok Adalat, 2nd respondent herein must vacate the premises by 30.11.2017. Since, the 2nd respondent did not vacate the premises pursuant to the Lok Adalat award, 1st respondent filed E.P.No.16 of 2018. In the said execution petition, claim petition was filed by a third party, appellant herein.

(b) In the Claim petition it was contended interalia that the claim petitioner is tenant in the schedule premises since February, 2017; that by virtue of oral agreement between him and G.Venkata Lakshmi, 1st respondent herein (land owner), he has been paying monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-; that he also paid advance of Rs.1,50,000/- to 2nd respondent; that 2nd respondent and her men came to the schedule property on 03.11.2017 and threatened the claim petitioner to pay another Rs.1,50,000/- to the 1st respondent and to increase the rent from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, for which the claim petitioner did not accept; that the claim petitioner filed suit O.S.No.1147 of 2017 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking perpetual injunction and he also filed I.A.No.2499 of 2017 seeking ad interim injunction; learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam granted ad interim injunction and the same was extended from time to time; that after receiving of summons, 1st respondent herein filed vakalat and also filed written statement and later she was set ex parte; that the 1st respondent filed application to set aside exparte order; while the matter stood thus, 1st respondent with her daughter and son-in-law came to the schedule shop along with henchmen and abused the petitioner, resulting in lodging complaint; that police registered Crime No.442 of 2018; that the claim petitioner also sent Rs.30,000/- towards three months rent, however, 1st respondent did not receive the same; that the claim petitioner is a protected tenant and he is not aware of filing of suit O.S.No.55 of 2016 and hence, he filed the claim petition to declare that the claim petitioner is tenant of 1st respondent and not to evict him from the schedule premises.

4. 1st Respondent herein filed counter and opposed the application. It was contended inter alia that there is no landlord and tenant relationship; that the claim petitioner and 2nd respondent, are brother and sister; that they colluded together brother filed claim petition; that the claim petition itself is not maintainable under law and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. 2nd Respondent filed counter and contended that she was tenant of 1st respondent and when