JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 29.04.2011, passed in A.S.No.21 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, whereunder and whereby, the judgment and decree, dated 23.04.2007, passed in Original Suit No.549 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tedepalligudem, were confirmed.

2. The appellants herein are defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs, in the trial Court.

3. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs filed the suit stating as follows:

The first plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule vacant site. The first defendant took the schedule vacant site on lease from the first plaintiff agreeing to pay monthly rent at Rs.500/- for the first year; Rs.600/- for the second year and Rs.700/- for the third year, for a period of three years commencing from 13.03.1998. The said lease deed is, however, neither properly stamped nor registered. The first plaintiff leased out only a vacant site. Any structure raised by the first defendant has to be removed at the time of vacation by 10.03.2001. After 10.03.2001 the possession of the first defendant is wrongful and he is liable to pay damages for use and occupation. The lease deed also provided that if the first plaintiff wanted to have super structure or any other structure made by the first defendant in the schedule site, the first plaintiff has an option to purchase, or otherwise, the first defendant has to remove the constructions made by him. The first plaintiff does not want any super structure to be retained and the first defendant has to remove all structures in the schedule site. The first plaintiff has been requesting the first defendant to vacate the property. But, first defendant began postponing the same on some pretext or the other. The first defendant has committed willful default of payment of rent of Rs.600/-per month for the second year and Rs.700/- per month for the third year, as agreed to. He paid only Rs.500/- and committed willful default of payment of rent of even Rs.500/- since June, 2000. The first defendant is liable to pay Rs.12,100/- along with interest @12% per annum. The first defendant filed O.S.No.57 of 2001 against the first plaintiff for perpetual injunction. The first defendant produced some receipts and filed into court in O.S.No.57 of 2001. The lease term expired by 11.03.2001 and the first defendant is liable to vacate the same without any notice to quit since the lease is determined by efflux of time and under Section 111 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, ‘T.P. Act’) no notice to quit under Section 106 is necessary. In spite of repeated demands, first defendant has not vacated the schedule property. Subsequent to the filing of the suit O.S.No.57 of 2001 against the first plaintiff and the filing of the written statement in that suit, the first plaintiff came to know that without the consent of the first plaintiff, first defendant sub leased the schedule property to defendants 2 and 3. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are running a Killi shop and a small hotel in the schedule site. The first defendant has no right to sublease the property. Hence defendants 2 and 3 are also necessary and proper parties to the suit and they are also liable to be evicted from the schedule site. The sublease is hit by doctine of lis pendens. The first defendant set up a kirana business in his own premises. The first defendant is getting a rent of Rs.1200/- per month from D2 and D3. During the pendency of the suit the first plaintiff offered to sell the schedule property to the second plaintiff and the bargain was settled at Rs.1,50,400/-. The first plaintiff informed the fact of the pendency of the suit and the first plaintiff offered to register the sale deed on receipt of c