MOGILIPUVVU ANNAPURNAIAH Vs. MALAMPATI NARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Annapurnayya, the appellant in the case laid the suit on 10/09/1974 for a permanent injunction against M. Narasimha Rao and G. Koteswara Rao (the lessors) directing them not to interfere with his possession of a building and a vacant site appurtenant thereto. He alleged he is a tenant in the building, that it was let out to him in 1961 by the two lessors for business purposes. The period in the written lease expired in June, 1973 and the lessors extended the lease for three more years, orally up to 1976 on payment of Rs. 2,500. The lessors denied the oral extension of lease. Their case was, the lease was terminated by notice, Ex. A1 dated 17/07/1974, thereafter, the tenant surrendered possession to them. Thus, the tenant was not in possession of the suit premises, therefore, no injunction can be granted against them.

(2.) The District Munsif, Narasaraopet on 17/11/1977 found the tenant did not surrender possession. The oral lease set up by the tenant up to 1976 is true. The Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 15 of 1960 however, was found applicable to the suit premises, therefore, he directed the parties to go before the Rent Controller for relief and ordered injunction against the lessors. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet on 28/11/1979 held the tenant did not surrender possession to the lessor but it was held in view of "Sec. 32" the Act 15 of 1960 did not apply to the facts of the case. The tenancy, it was held, by Ex. A-1 was terminated. The possession of the tenant, thereafter, was that of a "Trespasser" and, for that reason the tenant, in such circumstances, is not entitled to injunction. The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed.

(3.) In the second appeal, it may, at the outset, be stated that it is not possible to determine whether the possession of the tenant is statutory for in the suit and in appeal, there was no question directly raised as to the applicability of Act 15 of 1960. Without any issue and without determining whether what was let out was a building with a vacant site, or , merely a vacant site, the trial Court held that the parties should have recourse to the provisions of Act 15 of 1960 are inapplicable. Therefore, we do not propose to determine the applicability of Act 15 of 1960 as that question was not raised and decided directly in the suit and in the first appeal.