KOLISETTI VENKATARATNAM Vs. PATCHIGOLLA VENKATA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by the first defendant against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. The suit in ejectment was instituted by the respondent against the appellant and another by name Satyanarayanamurthy claiming to be the reversioner's to the estate of one Patchigolla Subbarao. The first defendant was a tenant of the down stair portion of a building situated in Vijayawada town, having been inducted into possession by the widow of Subbarao, Mahalakshmamma. Mahalakshmamma died on 30th November, 1949. Subsequent to her death one C. Subbarao issued a notice on behalf of one Sambasivarao calling upon the appellant to pay him the rent payable by him in respect of his tenancy and that if he should enter into an engagement with anyone else claiming to be the reversioner's of the estate of Subbarao he would do it at his own risk. A similar notice was received by him on 6th January, 1950, form the respondent claiming the rent setting up title to the property in reversion. The appellant replied on 11th January, 1950 stating that as competing titles were put forward to the property he was unable to decide as to who was the person that was entitled to receive the rent and that he was depositing the rent into the-bank to be taken by the person who gets his title declared in a Court of law. He accordingly deposited rent for three months in a branch of the Bharat Bank, Vijayawada, Exhibit B-7 (1). Not satisfied with the attitude of the first defendant, the present action was laid by the plaintiffs, both for possession of the property and for damages for use and occupation.

(2.) The answer of the first defendant to the suit was that it was not maintainable in a civil Court and that at any rate no relief could be granted against him.

(3.) The trial Court overruled both the pleas and while declaring that a decree to be obtained by the plaintiffs could not be executed in a civil Court in view of the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XXV of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act) stated in another portion of the judgment that under the general law the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the property ejecting the defendants therefrom but without prejudice to any rights of the defendants which might be successfully asserted by them in proceedings under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. The decree contained an unconditional direction that the first defendant should vacate the portion shown as A in the plan and put the plaintiffs in possession of the same. It is this portion of the decree that has driven the appellant to prefer an appeal to this Court.