P PRATAP REDDY Vs. D PULLAM RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole defendant in O S. No. 18 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem is the appellant. The plaintiff Pullam Raju purchased a site in Chatakonda under a register sale deed Ex. A-l dated 20-10-1976 and constructed a house after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities and leased it out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- on 2-7-1978. The building is situate in an agency tract in Telangana area. As the defendant committed default in payment of rent, the plaintiff terminated the lease on 7-12-1978 and filed a suit for recovery of possession after evicting the tenant. The defendant resisted the suit denying all the allegations made in the plaint. He set up title in himself and denied the relationship of land-lord and tenant. He stated that the sale in favour of the plaintiff and the lease in favour of the defendant are hit by the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation'). The trial court, as well as the appellate court, found that the plaintiff is the owner of the house; that the defendant has no title and that the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff. On these findings the courts below decreed the suit and ordered eviction of the defendant. The defendant has now come up in second appeal.

(2.) This appeal came up for hearing before the learned single Judgein the first instance. The learned Judge observed that the expression 'immovable property' used in Section 3 of the Regulation must be confined only to land and not to a building, and referred the case to a Division Bench as the question involved is of great importance.

(3.) Now two questions arise for consideration viz.1. Whether the expression 'immovable property mentioned in Sec. 3 of the Regulation should be confined only to the land and not to every immovable property? 2. Whether a lessee can challenge the title of the owner?