(PUNYAMURTHULA) 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? (4)Has this Court jurisdiction to try the suit? (5) What relief is plaintiff entitled to?

(3.) The lower Courts concur in finding that defendant is not a tenant with permanent right of occupancy, that the notice to quit is valid and the suit is within the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil Court. But the District Munsif has held that there is no admission by defendant of plaintiff's right to evict, nor any presumption that defendant was holding the lands as tenant from year to year.