POLU VENGAL REDDY Vs. KAKI VENKATA BRAHMANANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil revision petitions are directed against the judgment dated 9.10.2000 passed by the learned Principle Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, in R.C.A. No.l of 1997 and, therefore, they can be disposed of together. The unsuccessful tenants, 3 to 7 are the revision petitioners in CRP No.5572 of 2000 and 1 and 2 are the revision petitioners in CRP No. 174 of 2001.

(2.) It is expedient to refer the parties as they are originally arrayed in the eviction petition to avoid any confusion. The demised premises is situate on the municipal office road, Rajahmundry, abutting the municipal office. The owners thereof are the father of one Kaki Venkata Brahmanandam and the father of Kaki Venkata Suryanarayana Murthy and Kaki Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, who owned it in equal moieties. The petitioners- Venkata Brahmanandam, Venkata Suryanarayana Murthy and Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy on whom the property devolved after the demise of their respective fathers together leased out the demised premises in favour of one A.China Yerikala Reddy, the first respondent, and late A.Y. Reddy, the father of the second respondent and Respondents 4 to 6, under a registered lease deed dated 14.8.1964. The lease was originally granted for a period of 30 years terminable by 31.10.1994. The rent stipulated for the first 25 years was at the rate of Rs.500.00 and for the remaining 5 years was at the rate of Rs.800.00 per month. The tenants were permitted to effect necessary alterations and additions to the ground floor and first floor of the demised premises and to raise structures at their expenses on the vacant space available abutting thereto and at the end of the lease period the lessees should deliver the structures to the lessors without claiming any right, title or interest in the newly made structures, if any. The first respondent and late A. Y.Reddy together formed a partnership and started the hotel business under the name and style of "Hotel Apsara" in the demised premises and later they enlisted the third respondent as one of the partners. It is the case of the petitioners that the firm had stood dissolved and the tenants stopped the business and kept the demised premises under lock and key for quite a long time. However, the Respondents 1 and 2 sub-let the demised premises to the third respondent under a registered sub-lease deed dated 5.9.1985 and thus transferred their lease hold rights in favour of the third respondent. The third respondent in turn created a partnership in the name and style of "Hotel Apsara" by taking the Respondents 4 to 6 as his partners and he being the Managing Partner. The newly constituted firm is the 7th respondent. Thus the demised premises has been under the occupation of the newly constituted firm. The eviction petition was, therefore, filed on the premises of the alleged sub-lease; acts of waste which impaired the utility and value of the property; and wilful default for the period between April, 199 1/07/1993. After the death of Kaki Venkata Suryanarayana Murthy, his legal representatives were impleaded as Petitioners 4 to 6 and after the death of Late Brahmanandam Petitioners 11 to 17 were impleaded as his legal representatives.

(3.) The case of the Respondents 1 and 2 who resisted the petition separately was that they alone were entitled to the tenancy rights in the demised premises. Late A.Y. Reddy died after executing a will deed dated 4.9.1983 bequeathing all his properties in favour of the second respondent and, therefore, the Respondents 1 and 2 were entitled to the rights over the demised premises. The business was always run by the first respondent, who had taken nominally the third respondent as one of the partners. After the death of late A. Y.Reddy, the Respondents 1 and 2 invested huge amounts and changed the whole facade of the Hotel by installing new machinery, gadgetry, kitchen and restaurant and for such investment it necessitated a loan to be obtained from the Bank and at the suggestion of the third respondent, the document styling as a sub-lease was created nominally and only for the purpose of obtaining loan from the Bank. But, in reality, it was a sham and nominal document. However, the Respondents 3 to 6 became avaricious and started creating documents without notice to the Respondents 1 and 2 but the Respondents 1 and 2 had never given up the rights over the demised premises in any manner.