T LAKSHMIPATHI Vs. P NITHYANANDA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for eviction passed in favour of the respondent No. 1 on the grounds available under S. 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(b)(iii) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 by the courts below and upheld by the High Court is under challenge in this appeal by special leave, filed by the persons in occupation of the premises. The facts of the case are complex and litigations between the parties are multiple. It will be useful to notice in brief the several litigations between the parties which will have an incidental bearing on the principal controversy and would enable precise appreciation of the facts.

(2.) The suit premises are non-residential bearing Door No. 18-7-4 situated in Ponniamman Koli Street of Chittoor town. This property was initially owned by one P. Nayarana Reddy. In the year 1959 a suit was instituted for partition of certain joint family properties wherein the suit property was one of the items. P. Narayana Reddy had two sons, namely, P. Nithyananda Reddy, the respondent No. 1 and P. Manohar Reddy and five daughters. Late P. Narayana Reddy, his wife and his two sons were arrayed as plaintiffs. Partition of joint family properties was sought for from the branch of the family headed by brother of late P. Narayana Reddy. P. Narayana Reddy expired in the year 1981. By that time P. Manohar Reddy, the second son, had pre-deceased the father. Five daughters and the widow of pre-deceased son were brought on record by way of substitution in place of late P. Narayana Reddy and his wife who had also expired. A preliminary decree for partition was passed. At one stage in the appeals pending against the preliminary decree there was a compromise entered into by some of the parties in the year 1983. The compromise had the effect of allotting the suit property to the share of P. Nithyananda Reddy, the respondent No. 1. However, the compromise decree was recalled and set aside on an application filed by some of the co-sharers who were not joined as parties to the compromise. The appeal against the preliminary decree is still pending. Final decree in the partition suit is yet to be passed. Therefore, for all practical purposes though the shares of the parties to partition stand declared by the decree of the trial court, the declaration is still hanging fire in the pending appeal and partition by metes and bounds is yet to take place.

(3.) Here it would be relevant to state that during the course of hearing in the present appeal before us, some controversy was sought to be raised as to the extent of share to which P. Nithyananda Reddy, the respondent No.1, would be entitled to in the suit premises. However, we are not concerned with that controversy in the present appeal and leave the same to be adjudicated upon in the partition suit and the pending appeal and proceedings subsequent thereto. For the purposes of the present appeal, we will proceed on an assumption that P. Nithyananda Reddy, the respondent No.1, is a co-owner in the suit premises and there are other co-owners as well; the exact extent or proportion of co-ownership interests being irrelevant for the present proceedings.