CHINTA KASHINATHAM Vs. PENDYALA NARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these two second appeals arise out of the common Judgment dated 17.11.2004, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) S.A.No.160 of 2005 arises out of A.S.No.1 of 2004 filed against the Decree in O.S.No.179 of 2001 as suit filed by the respondents against the appellant and others for recovery of vacant possession of Ac.0.13 guntas 35 s.q. yards let out to the appellant and others by the respondents, after removing the structures raised by the appellants and others therein. S.A. No.161 of 2005 arises out of A.S. No.24 of 2004 filed against the Decree in O.S.No.136 of 2001 a suit filed by the appellant seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the Ac.0.13 guntas 35 s.q. yards 35 sq. yards of land and structures therein, which is the subject matter of the aforesaid OS.No.179 of 2001.

(3.) Respondents who are the owners of the land covered by the suits i.e. suit land filed O.S.No.179 of 2001 for recovery of the suit land from the appellant and others, who are the partners of a firm, which was let out to them for 20 Years under a registered lease deed dated 02.06.1976, after expiry of the period of lease and after issuing a notice to quit. They sought vacant possession of the land after demolishing the structures raised by the appellant and others as lessees. The case of the appellant, who filed O.S. No.136 of 2001 seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession of the suit land is that after expiry of the period of lease covered by the lease deed dated 02.06.1976, respondents who renewed the lease for 20 more years at an enhanced rent, cannot interfere with his possession over the suit land before expiry of the period covered by the renewed lease, more so because he raised two new sheds in the suit land; He took the same defence in O.S.No.179 of 2001.