(1.) The unsuccessful first defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The trial court decreed the suit against the appellant. The appellate court confirmed the same.Against the concurrent decrees of the courts below the second appeal has been filed.
(2.) Though no point has been raised with regard to the legality of the notice, on going through the notice the court has pointed out that the notice does not appear to be validly given and an opportunity has been given to both the counsels. Shri. Mangachary learned counsel for the appellant on going through Ex. A. 1 notice dt. 10.4. 1978 contends that there is no notice terminating the tenancy with a particular specified period and that there is no termination of the legal relationship of the appellant and the respondent as tenant and the landlord and therefore the suit is not maintainable. Shri. A Surya Rao learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that on a fair regarding of the notice Ex. A. 1 it ;discloses 1) Ramachandca Patro vs. Suryanarayana Murthy (Ramaswamy, J) that the intention has been clearly expressed terminating the tenancy and it has properly been considered by both the courts. The notice has to be construed as terminating the tenancy and thus the suit has been properly laid.
(3.) The facts not in disputes are that the property orginally belonged to the junior Zamindari of Tekkali. In OS. No. 69 of 1967 the Zamindari sold the property to the plaintiffs after the receiver was discharged under Ex. A.4. While the suit was pending in January, 1977 the appellant was inducted into possession by the Second defendant tenant and the appellant had put up a Baddi and has been transacting his business thereat. In tho notice dt. 10-4-78 the appellant was intimated about the termination of the tenancy and trie suit has been filed on 14-4-78. It may also be noted that in the reply issued by the appallant to Ex. A. 1 which is marked as Ex. A3 he denied the tenancy with the plaintiff and ho set up permanent tenancy with the Zamindarini.