PULAVARTHI VENKATA SUBBA RAO Vs. JUPUDI KESAVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals raise common questions of fact and law. They can therefore be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. O.S. No. 81 of 1957 was filed by Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao and Pulavarthi Venka Anjanaganaramakrishna Anandarao for the recovery of possession of the suit site after removing the construction and mill materials thereon. This suit was instituted on 12th March, 1957. S.A. No. 488 of 1962 arises out of that suit, Another O.S. No. 100 of 1957 was filed by the same persons on 5th April, 1957, for recovery of Rs. 4,700 as damages for use and occupation of the suit site for a period commencing from 1st January, 1957 to 4th April, 1957 at the rate of Rs. 50 per day, in all for 94 days. S.A. No. 516 of 1962 arises out of that suit. The third suit, O.S. No. 92 of 1958 was filed by defendants i and 2 in the abovesaid two suits against the plaintiffs in those two suits. Defendants 3 and 4 who were once partners of the rice mill along with the plaintiff, were also made parties to the suit. That suit was instituted for specific performance of an agreement of lease dated 6th January, 1957. S.A. No. 875 of 1961 arises out of that suit. The trial Court gave facts in O.S. No. 92 of 1958. The learned Subordinate Judge in appeal also made' that suit as the basis for reference to facts and I will also for the purpose of appreciating the contentions raised in all the three appeals refer to the facts as they appear in O.S. No. 92 of 1958. Defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of the suit site admeasuring Ac. 1.57 cents situated in Bhimavaram. It was alleged that the site was taken on lease by Kanumuri Narasimharaju from the guardian of minor defendants i and 2 on their behalf on 21st December, 1941, by means of a registered lease for a period of 15, years. The said K. Narasimharaju founded a mill on the suit site. After working the mill for some time he sold his rights in, the mill to others and finally the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 became the successors-in-title in respect of the lease-hold right of K. Narasimharaju. Defendants 1 and 2 accepted the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 as lessees and treated them as such. The 1st and and defendants however gave notice on 17th July, 1956, that the lease period was expiring by 31st December, 1956. The plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 therefore should vacate the premises after the term of the lease was over. It was contended that upon the receipt of this notice and plaintifis met defendants 1 and 2 and requested them to extend the period of lease. The 1st and 2nd defendants demanded enhanced rent. After some negotiations the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 entered into an agreement of lease during the first week of January, 1957. According to that lease, which would be in continuation of the old, one, the defendants 1 and 2 would lease the site to the plaintiffs for 30 years commencing from 1st January, 1957. The plaintiffs agreed not only on their behalf but on behalf of defendants 3 and 4. It was also agreed that after the expiry of the said period if defendants 1 and 2 desired to purchase the said mill it should be sold by the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 to defendants 1 and 2 at the price that may be fixed by the President of the Bhimavaram Rice Millers' Association. In case such a purchase was not made, the lessees would remove the superstructure and the building and the materials of the mill and deliver vacant possession of the site to defendants 1 and 2. The rent was fixed at Rs. 540 per year the rent being payable every two months. It was also agreed that a lease deed would be executed. A stamped agreement of lease was written and signed by the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and the lease deed was delivered to the 1st defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff, therefore continued in possession in pursuance of that lease and effected improvements investing a huge sum of Rs. 30,000. Subsequent to the lease agreement, the 1st plaintiff purchased the shares of the 3rd and 4th defendants in the said mill. Since the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to fulfil their part of the lease agreement, the 1st and 2nd defendants are going back upon their contract in executing a formal lease deed and contrary to this contract on account of some illwill the 1st and 2nd defendants have instituted the two suits for recovery of possession and for damages. Upon these facts relief of specific performance was sought.

(3.) In their written statement, defendants 1 and 2 stated that according to the original lease deed dated 21st December, 1941 (Exhibit A-22) the term was for 15 years which was to expire on 3ist December, 1956. The rent fixed was Rs. 90 per year. The lease deed also contained a term that if after the expiry of the said term Vacant possession was not handed over to the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiffs would be liable to pay Rs. 50 per day as damages. In spite of the notice dated 17th July, 1956, calling upon them to hand over vacant possession of the suit site after the expiry of the term, the plaintifis did not vacate nor did they give any reply. There were certain negotiations between the plaintiffs and the said defendants, but there was no concluded contract or any agreement. They denied the execution of any agreement. They did not accept the contention of the plaintiffs that an agreement of lease was executed and kept with the defendants which was for 30 years with an increased rent containing the terms alleged by the plaintiffs. It was further contended that no specific performance can be decreed in favour of the plaintifts, because there was no proper contract, even assuming that the facts mentioned by the plaintifts are correct. These defendants therefore had to institute one suit for recovery of possession and another for damages at the rate of Rs. 50 per day for a certain period.