PUNYAKURTHULA VENKATA RATTAMMA Vs. CHALASANI SREERAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff sued for possession of certain property after ejecting defendants therefrom, and for rent and subsequent mesne profits.

(2.) The defendants in the suits clubbed together admitted that they had been paying annual rent and that plaintiff was entitled to arrears of rent, but claimed that the property was governed by the Estates Land Act so as to take the suit beyond the Munsif's jurisdiction, and also that they had occupancy right. The following issues were framed (as if for one of the suits): 1. Is the defendant a yearly tenant as alleged by the plaintiff, or is he a tenant with a permanent right of occupancy? 2. Is the notice to quit valid?

(3.) What damages or mesne profits, if any, is plaintiff entitled to?