PALA NARAYANA Vs. MUNUKUNTLA PULLAIAH DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal in O.S. 103/76 decreeing with costs the suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff for eviction of defendants 1 to 3 from the suit house bearing Nos. 12/757 and 758 situated in Warangal town, for delivery of possession and for direction for mesne profits. At the time of the institution of the suit there were three defendants during the pendency of the suit the first defendant died and so his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 4 to 10. The suit house was constructed prior to 1957. M/s. Pala Venkatanarasayya, a firm carrying on cloth business occupied the house as tenant on 11-11-1959 under the original of Ex. B-3. Defendants 1 to 3 and one K. Satyanarayana were partners of the firm. The firm continued to be in occupation as tenant holding over. The business of the firm was closed in 1973 and the house was kept under lock. A suit O. S. 8/75 was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Warangal and a receiver was appointed on 12-6-75 for taking possession of the house. The lock was brokeopen by the receiver and after taking inventory the stocks were handed over to the defendants. Under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 the plaintiff-landlord got issued a notice, the original of Ex. A-3 on 23-6-75 to the Revenue Divisional Officer who is the authorised officer under the Rent Control Act, informing that the firm was dissolved and the building came into his possession on 12 6-75. The notice of vacancy was given by way of an application by the grand son of the plaintiff landlord. The authorised officer, after notice to the landlord and tenants passed an order, Ex. A-11, directing summary dispossession of the tenants within three days. Challenging the order of the authorised officer a writ petition was filed-W P 4793/75-by the tenants in this court. The writ petition was allowed by Ramchandra Raju, J. on 31-1-1976 (Ex. A-15 is the copy of the judgment) holding that under Sec. 3 (3) of the Rent Control Act within 15 days of the receipt of the vacancy report by the authorised officer, if no intimation was given to the landlord in writing that the building is required by the State Government or Central Government or any local authority, the landlord is at liberty either to occupy the building himself or lease it out. Without giving such a notice, the authorised officer could not pass an order directing dispossession of the tenant. On that view the impugned order was set aside. The learned judge also went into the question whether there was any vacancy in the tenancy and after considering the deed of dissolution the original of Ex. B-9 dated 14-7-75 between the three defendants and K. Satyanarayana another partner, held that :

(2.) Resisting the suit the defendants pleaded in their written statement that the firm Pala Venkatanarasayya was not dissolved ; the fourth partner Satyanarayana retired from the firm assigning his interest in the leasehold rights and that the observation of the High Court that the firm was dissolved and there was vacancy in the tenancy was an obiter dicta and there was no necessity for such observation for the final disposal of the writ petition. The defendants also pleaded that they filed W A 401/86 against the judgment in the writ petition and as the matter wes pending no finality could be attached to the judgment in the writ petition. As Sat3'anarayana, one of the partners was giving trouble, the firm was closed for a considerable period "since 1973". The partnership business is continued even after the retirement of Satyanarayana and, therefore, the premises bad not fallen vacant. The defendants being statutory tenants, they are not liable to be evicted nor or they liable to damages or mesne profits.

(3.) Another suit O S 13/79 was instituted by the present appellants (defendants in O S 103/76) against the landlord and the Superintending Engineer, State Electricity Board and Assistant Engineer, State Electricity Board, Warangal for an injunction restraining the aforesaid defendants in that suit from removing the electricity supply meter and from disconnecting electricity supply. In that suit it was averred that taking advantage of the internal disputes between the partners, the landlord had taken unlawful possession of three rooms on the rear side of the suit premises and because of the retirement of the fourth partner Satyanarayana, the landlord with a view to evicting the firm from the premises illegally, was trying to remove the electric meter and disconnect the electric supply in order to force the plaintiffs to vacate the premises. It was alleged in that suit that the landlord filed an application before the Assistant Engineer on 9-4-75 that he no longer required supply of electricity and, therefore, requested removal of the meter Which was standing in his name he being the landlord, although charges were being paid by the plaintiffs-tenants. The landlord the first defendant in that suit contended in the written statement that as per the judgment of High Court in W P No 4793/75, the firm was dissolved and there was a vacancy and the possession of the plaintiffs was unlawful. As owner of the building he was entitled to express his desire to have the electricity supply discontinued. The second defendant-the Superintending Engineer-filed a written statement in the suit averring that the Electricity Board had no intention to get involyed in the disputes between the- landtord and the tenants. The application filed by the landlord for removal of the meter was pending consideration. The Assistant Engineer-D-3-filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the Superintending Engineer. O.S.13/79 was originally filed as O.S.309/75 in the court of the District Munsif, Warangal by the plaintiffs. The suit O.S. 309/75 was transferred by the District Judge by an order dated 29-12-78 from the file of the District Munsif Warangal to the file of Subordinate Judge, Warangal to be tried along with O.S. 103/76. After the transfer, the suit was renumbered as O.S. 13/79. This Court by an order in C.R.P. 7325/79 filed by the present appellants directed the Subordinate Judge, Warangal to club both the suits, to record evidence in O.S. 103/76 and treat the same as evidence in O.S. 13/79 as well. Accordingly the learned Subordinate judge clubbed both the suits and framed appropriate issues. During the pendency of the trial, the W.A 401/76 filed by the tenants against the judgment in W.P. 4793/75 was dismissed by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice and Gangadhar Rao, J holding that :