VENKATESWARA OIL COMPANY Vs. G JALAJA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the appellants. One Guduru Chengareddy, father of the third respondent filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule vacant site, and for arrears of rent amounting to Rs.23,250/- together with future profits.

(2.) The material allegations as disclosed in the plaint are summarised hereunder: The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Guduru Atchamma, the mother of the first plaintiff as she got the same under registered partition deed dated 14-7-1956 between herself and defendant Nos.l to 3 and others. In fact, defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the brother's sons of the said Atchamma. Defendant Nos.1 to 3, and 4th defendant who is the third respondent herein, who is the son of the first plaintiff are the partners in a registered firm called Sri Venkateswara Oil Company, Tirupati and they obtained the plaint schedule site from the said Atchamma on lease for running a business in Diesel and Petrol, etc. The lease commenced on 1-5-1965 on a monthly rent of Rs.750/-. The defendants had been paying rents to Atchamma and obtaining receipts. Atchamma died on 24-5-1971 leaving behind her the 1st plaintiff, her only son. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have attorned to the first plaintiff after the death of Atchamma in respect of the suit property and they have been paying rents to the first plaintiff regularly till December, 1974, and thereafter, they committed default in payment of rent from January, 1975 to the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff wanted the plaint schedule property for his bona fide requirement, and as the defendants did not oblige, he issued notices dated 12-5-1977 terminating the tenancy of the defendants and also to pay the arrears of Rs.23,500/-. The defendants refused to receive the said notices. Though the fourth defendant received the notice, he did not care to reply. The first plaintiff once again sent notices dated 16-6-1977 terminating the tenancy from 1-8-1977. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 again evaded the service and only the fourth defendant received the notice, but he did not respond. Hence the suit.

(3.) The written statement filed by the third defendant was adopted by defendant Nos.1 & 2. The fourth defendant did not file any written statement. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied that the plaint schedule property belonged to Atchamma. They also denied the registered partition deed dated 14-6-1956, so also their taking the plaint schedule site on lease from Atchamma on 1-4-1965. It is further denied that they were paying any rents to Atchamma. The further allegation that they have attorned to plaintiff No.1 as tenants is false. Issuance of notices was also denied. The fourth defendant is the son of the first plaintiff, and therefore, the suit was filed as a result of collusion between them. The plaint schedule land of Ac.0-94 cents is in Survey No.150.