BHUPAL PRASAD R V Vs. SALEHA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) first defendant in O. S. 538 of 1985 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada is the appellant in this appeal.

(2.) First respondent filed the suit against the appellant and respondents 2 to 18 for recovery of possession of Navarang Theatre at Congress Office Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada, hereinafter called the suit property, and for damages and mesne profits, on the ground that the agreed period of lease in respect of suit property between her, the appellant and respondents 2 to 18 under Ex. A-1 lease deed came to an end due to efflux of time. Appellant contested the suit contending that respondents 2 to 18 have no interest in the suit property, and that 1st respondent having initiated proceedings under the Rent Control Act cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for eviction. During the fag end of the proceedings before the trial Court, he filed two additional written statements on 13-9-1997 and 4-2-1999 contending that first respondent (plaintiff) did not acquire title to the suit property and that he cannot be evicted in view of Clause 22 of Ex.A-1 lease deed, and that the suit is not maintainable in view of Ex,B-4 notice dated 20-5-1989 issued by the 1st respondent. Defendants 2 and 4 who filed separate written statements, did not participate in the trial of the suit.

(3.) 1st respondent examined one witness on her behalf as P. W. I and marked Exs. A-1 to A-108. Appellant examined himself only as R. W. 1 and marked Exs. B-1 to B-11 on his behalf. The learned Trial Judge, by his judgment dated 30-4-1999 passed a decree of eviction against appellant and respondents 2 to 18 and a decree for recovery of Rs. 40,250.00 towards arrears of rent from 1-1-1984 to 30-11-1985, and for an amount at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per day from 1-12-1995 till date of delivery of possession of the suit property to the 1st respondent against the appellant only. Respondents 2 to 18 did not prefer an appeal against the decree of eviction passed against them. So the decree of eviction passed against them by the trial Court became final as against them. Aggrieved by the decree of eviction and recovery of money passed against him appellant filed A. S. No. 1620 of 1999, and aggrieved by the non-awarding of mesne profits subsequent to the filing of the suit at the market rate 1st respondent filed A.S. 1917 of 1999 in this Court, The learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 29-12-2000 disposed of both the appeals, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and confirming the order of eviction passed against him by the trial Court and allowed the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent, and granted a decree for mesne profits from M-1984 till date of delivery of possession to be determined on a separate application. Hence this Letter Patent Appeal by the 1st defendant.