Ms. K . Prasanthi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SATTENAPALLI.

PRESENT:-Ms K.Prasanthi,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

Monday, this the 6 th day of November, 2023.

OS. No.237 of 2014.

Between:-

1. Pendyala Siva Ramaiah, S/o Seetharamaiah, Hindu, 48 years, VRO, C/o Chandraiah gari Buildings, r/o D.No.15.2.6, 15th ward, Vadavalli, Sattenapalli Town.

2. Pendyala Nirmala Devi, W/o Siva Ramaiah, Hindu, House wife, 40 years, r/o Vadavalli c/o Chandraiah gari buildings, Sattenapalli Town. … Plaintiffs. -And-

1. Yellinedi Hanumantha Rao, S/o Lae Ramaiah, Hindu, Cultivation, 48 years.

2. Yellinedi Naga Raja Kumari, W/o Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, Cultivation, 46 years.

3. Nali Rajaiah, S/o Avulaiah, Hindu, Cultivation, 46 years.

4. Ramisetty Nageswara Rao, S/o Narasaiah, Hindu, Retd. Employee, 59 years.

All are R/o Vaddavalli area, C/o Chandraiah gari buildings, Sattenapalli Town.

...Defendants.

This case is coming on 06.11.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. D. Bapaiah Chowdary, Learned counsel for plaintiff and of Sri. B.L. Chinnaiah, learned counsel for defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 4 are remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 filed the suit against the defendants No.1 to 4 seeking the relief of declaration that the ABCD Path way situated on the western side of house portions No.1 to 6 with a width of 7 ½ feet and length of 120 feet all along is a common pathway for the plaintiffs and defendants No.3, 4, b) for mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.1 and 2 to install the boring pump which was removed by them with their own costs c) for mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.1 and 2 to remove illegal constructions i.e., Dias constructed in the common pathway and d) for the costs of the suit.

2

02.The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

Originally the entire six portions and vacant space situated on front and back side of six portions shown in the plaint plan belong to one Late Yellinedi Kotaiah. The said kotaiah is having six children. After the death of said Yellinedi Kotaiah his entire property i.e., landed and house property were divided and the family members entered into partition list on 22.06.1978. The house property consists of six portions originally.

The extreme north portion which was shown as plot No.6 in the rough plan is in possession and enjoyment of 4th defendant. To the south of Plot No.6 as per the rough plan fell to the share of one Late Yellinedi Ramaiah who is the father of first defendant.

To the south of first defendant’s plot No.5, Late Yellinedi Venkaiah got the share i.e., Plot

No.4. The said Yellnedi Venkaiah has no children and after his death his wife Yellinedi

Seshamma sold Plot No.4 to one Gunda Purnachandra Rao under registered sale deed, dt.16.11.2007. Subsequently the said Gunda Purnachandra Rao sold his property i.e.,

Plot No.4 to one Nellaturi Santhaiah under GPA-cum-sale deed, dt.27.04.2009. Again the said Nellaturi Santhaiah sold the Plot No.4 to the first plaintiff under registered sale deed, dt.01.05.2009 and since then the first plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of plot No.4. To the south of plot No.4 i.e., Plot No.3 fell to the share of

Yellinedi Chandraiah who sold the same to plaintiffs No.1 and 2 jointly under registered sale deed, dt.30.05.2000 and since then the plaintiff No.1 and 2 have been in possession and enjoyment of plot No.3 jointly. To the south of plot No.3 there is plot

No.2 which fell to the share of one Alla Subbarao i.e., brother-in-law of Yellinedi

Chandraiah and his brothers. The said plot has been again divided between the sons of

Alla Subbarao and at present plot No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of Alla Srinivasa

Rao, who is the one of the son of Alla Subbarao. To the south of Plot No.2 i.e., Plot No.1 fell to the share of Alla Sambasiva Rao and after his death his wife sold the plot No.1 to third defendant and third defendant has been possession and enjoyment of plot No.1.

At the time of composite family partition some space or passage was left on the western side to reach the bathrooms situated on the north-west corner to the west of the property which was shown as ABCD in the plan. At the time of partition some space was let out for common pathway for ingress and egress with a width of 7 ½ 3 feet all along from South to North i.e., from first Plot to sixth plot. The said pathway is a joint pathway for all the owners of six portions. The first plaintiff who purchased the plot

No.3 and plaintiffs No.1 and 2 who jointly purchased Plot No.4 under sale deeds with a right passage to reach the bathrooms for regular use. Except said common pathway there is no other alternative for the plaintiffs, owners of plot No.2, defendants No.1, 2 and 3. The plaintiffs, defendants and the owners of Plot No.2 are making use of common bathrooms. There is a common boring pump for drawing water to the south west corner of defendants No.1 and 2 i.e., in the common pathway ABCD of the plaint plan for drawing water for all the portions. The defendants No.1 and 2 with an ulterior motive high handedly removed the boring pump and constructed temporary brick construction i.e., Dias for obstruction in the middle of joint pathway with a height of five feet and length of ten feet. The plaintiffs, owners of Plot No.2 and third defendant are not able to use the common bathrooms. Inspite of oral requests by the plaintiffs and elders, defendants No.1 and 2 did not remove the illegal constructions in the common pathway and not reinstalled boring pump. In the month of May, 2010 the plaintiffs reported the matter to police as the defendants No.1 and 2 cause obstructions and threatened the plaintiffs by abusing them, but no action was taken against the defendants No.1 and 2.

Then the plaintiff got issued legal notice, dt.21.06.2010 to the defendants, the first defendant refused to receive the notice and the notice was served on second defendant.

The defendants No.1 and 2 have not issued reply notice and are creating troubles to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

03.The first defendant filed written statement, denying averments made in the plaint. The second defendant adopted the written statement of first defendant. The third defendant was set exparte, as he failed to file written statement within stipulated time.

The fourth defendant was set exparte, as he failed to appear before the court on service of summons. The brief averments in the written statement of defendants No.1 and 2 are as follows:

There is no common pathway for ingress and egress with a width of 7 ½ feet from South to North. There is no space left over the western side for passage to 4 reach the bathrooms. There are no bathrooms constructed on the western side of schedule property shown in the rough sketch. The bathroom were constructed long back and the same were not being used as they are in dilapidated condition and all the plot owners constructed their respective bathrooms in their own plots and the commons bathrooms were not in use. All the plot owners have got main door way on the eastern side and no plot owner can use the western side since long time. There is no common boring pump for drawing water to the south west corner of defendants No.1 and 2. The defendants never removed the boring pump and constructed brick construction in the middle of joint pathway. The defendants never obstructed the plaintiffs for usage of western side bathrooms. The plaintiffs and their vendors have been using their plot on the eastern side only. The western side of the plots No.1 to 6 are kept vacant as bushes were raised and pigs were passing in the western side site due to non usage of site.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties the following issues have been framed for the purpose of trial.

1.Whether there exists ABCD common pathway between ancestors of D1, D2 and the vendors of plaintiff in width of 7 ½ feet from south to north towards western side of house portions 1 to 6 mentioned in the plaint plan?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration over the said ABCD Path way?

3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction directing D1 and D2 to restore boring pump as alleged to be removed by D1 and D2?

4.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction directing D1 and D2 to remove the alleged illegal construction in the common path way?

5.To what relief?

05.To Substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff himself gave evidence as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8. The plaintiffs also got examined third party to the suit proceedings as PW.2. On the other hand the first defendant himself is examined as DW.1. No oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant.

5

06.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and learned counsel for defendants

No.1 and 2. Written arguments filed on both sides.

07. ISSUE No.1 and 2 :

The contention of the plaintiffs is that the ABCD of the plaint plan is a common pathway for ingress and egress of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 with a width of 7 ½ feet from North to South towards western side of house portions No.1 to 6 of the plaint plan. The contention of the defendants is that there is no common pathway for ingress and egress with a width of 7 ½ feet from South to North.

In support of contention of plaintiffs, the first plaintiff is examined as PW.1. Pw.1 filed his chief affidavit by reproducing the contents of plaint. Ex.A.1 to A.8 are marked on behalf of plaintiffs. Ex.A.1 is registered sale deed, dt.30.05.2000, under which the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 jointly purchased Plot No.4 of plaint plan from one Y. Chandraiah and his son Subbarao. Ex.A.2 is registered sale deed, dt.01.05.2009 under which the first plaintiff purchased plot No.3 of plaint plan from one B. Purnachandra Rao represented by GPA N. Santhaiah. PW.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for defendants. During cross examination Pw.1 deposed that he has shown the house properties and way in the schedule filed along with plaint. Further he deposed that on the western side of house property there is a pathway with a width of 7 ½ feet and length of 120 feet which is mentioned in Ex.A.2 document. Pw.1 deposed that his vendors got property under partition deed, dt.22.06.1978. Further he deposed that as per recital in partition deed the measurement is shown as 86 ½ feet of length, where as in Ex.A.2 document it was shown as 91 feet. Further he deposed that as per recital in partition deed the width is shown as four feet on western side, where as in Ex.A.2 it is shown as 7½ feet. Pw.1 was suggested that there is no extent of 7 ½ feet width passage on the western side of all the six portions. PW.1 denied the said suggestion. In support of contention of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs got examined third party to the suit as

PW.2. PW.2 supported the case of plaintiffs in all material aspects by stating that there is a common pathway for ingress and egress with a width of 7 ½ feet all along from south to north i.e., from Plots No.1 to 6 and the said pathway is joint pathway for all the 6 owners of the portions. Pw.2 also deposed that except the said common pathway, there is no other way for plaintiffs and owners of Plot No.2, defendants No.1,2 and 3. During cross examination PW.2 deposed that all the partitions are facing towards eastern side.

Nothing is elicited from the cross of Pws.1 and 2 to show that there is no common path way to an extent of 7 ½ feet width from south of north.

In the support of the contention of the defendants the first defendant is examined as Dw.1. Dw.1 filed his chief affidavit by reproducing the contents of written statement by stating that there is no common pathway for ingress and egress with a width of 7 ½ feet from south to north. During cross examination Dw.1 deposed that the suit schedule property and other properties are joint properties and they were partitioned on 22.06.1978 along with landed properties and partition list was reduced in to writing.

Further he deposed that his portion is situated adjacent to plaintiffs portion on northern side, D4 is residing on the southern side of his house, on the eastern side there is a vacant site and western side there is a Varasandhu and on the further western side there is a vacant site which is a joint property. So as per the evidence of Dw.1 there is varasandhu which is a pathway on the western side of house partitions No.1 to 6 of plaint plan. But Dw.1 deposed during cross examination that the varasandhu measures 4 feet width and 72 feet length. Dw.1 was suggested that the said Varasandhu is joint property as per documents, for which he admitted the same. So admittedly by Dw.1 there is a Varasandhu or pathway on the western side of house portions No.1 to 6. But the contention of the Dw.1 is that the said pathway is not in an extent of 7 ½ feet, but it is in extent of 4 feet width and 72 feet length. But Dw.1 has not filed any documentary proof to show that the pathway is not in extent of 7 ½ feet width. But during cross examination Dw.1 deposed that the plan which was filed along with plaint and schedule filed along with the plaint is true and correct. On perusal of the plaint schedule ABCD

Pathway is shown in an extent of 7 ½ feet width from South to North towards western side of house portions No.1 to 6. So except the oral evidence of Dw.1 there is no other independent evidence on record to show that the pathway is not in an extent of 7 ½ feet width, where as the plaintiffs by relying upon the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 were able to prove that there is exists ABCD common pathway for ingress and agrees to a width of 7 7 ½ feet from South to North towards western side of house portions No.1 to 6 mentioned in the plaint plan. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration over the

ABCD pathway. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

08. ISSUE NO.3 :-

The contention of the plaintiffs is that there is a common boring pump for drawing water to the south west corner of defendants No.1 and 2 i.e., in the common pathway

ABCD of plaint plan for drawing water for all house portions. The contention of the defendants is that there is no common boring pump for drawing water to the south west corner of defendants No.1 and 2.

In support of the contention of plaintiffs, the first plaintiff is examined as Pw.1

Pw.1 filed his chief affidavit by reproducing the contents of plaint. During cross examination Pw.1 deposed that there is a recital in the partition deed, dt.22.06.1978 that there is bore well in the property of D1 with is jointly used by all the sharers. Further he deposed that there is recital in the partition deed about the existence of bore well in the joint pathway. PW.1 was suggested that there is no joint bore well on the western side of defendants property in the common pathway. Pw.1 denied the said suggestion. In support of their contention the plaintiffs got examined Pw.2 third party to the suit. PW.2 supported the case of PW.1 by stating that there is common bore well in the ABCD pathway for drawing water for all portions. Nothing is elicited during cross examination of

Pw.2 to show that there is no joint bore well in the ABCD common pathway.

The contention of the defendants is that there is no common bore well for drawing water to the south west corner of defendants No.1 and 2 i.e., common ABCD pathway of plaint plan. In support of the said contention the first defendant is examined as Dw.1. Dw.1 filed his chief affidavit by reproducing the contents of written statement and by stating that there is no common bore well for drawing water to the south west corner of defendants No.1 and 2 i.e., common ABCD pathway of plaint plan. But during 8 cross examination Dw.1 deposed that there is a bore well on the back side of his portion and at present it is closed. Hence, the said evidence of Dw.1 goes to shows that there is a bore well in the property of D1 and it is closed. The evidence of Pw.1 and 2 goes to show that is a bore well which is common one for drawing water for all the portions. The admission made by Dw.1 goes to show that at present the bore well is closed. So the defendants are liable to restore the bore well which was closed by them and the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants No.1 and 2 to restore the boring pump which was removed by them. Accordingly the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

09. ISSUE No.4 :-

The contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendants constructed temporary brick constructions i.e., Dias for obstructions in the middle of joint pathway and due to that the plaintiffs are not able to use the common bathrooms. The contention of the defendants is that there is no space on the western side to reach bathrooms and there are no bathrooms constructed on the western side of schedule property shown in the rough sketch and the defendants never made brick construction in the middle of joint pathway.

In support of the contention of plaintiffs, the first plaintiff is examined as

Pw.1 Pw.1 filed his chief affidavit by reproducing the contents of plaint. During cross examination Pw.1 deposed that there is a recital in Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 about the bathrooms and also there is recital in partition deed, dt.22.06.1978. PW.1 was suggested that there is no existence of common bathrooms in the ABCD pathway. Pw.1 denied the said suggestion. In support of their contention the plaintiffs got examined

Pw.2 third party to the suit. PW.2 supported the case of PW.1 by stating that the defendants made temporary constructions in the ABCD common pathway and so the plaintiffs are not able to use the common bathrooms. Nothing is elicited during cross examination of Pw.2 to show that defendants not made temporary constructions in the

ABCD common pathway and so the plaintiffs are not able to use the common bathrooms.

9

The contention of the defendants is that there is no space on the western side to reach bathrooms and there are no bathrooms constructed on the western side of schedule property shown in the rough sketch and the defendants never made brick constructions in the middle of joint pathway. In support of the said contention the first defendant is examined as Dw.1. Dw.1 filed his chief affidavit by reproducing the contents of written statement and by stating that there are no bathrooms constructed on the western side of schedule property and no space was left over on the western side to reach the bathrooms. Though the defendants pleaded that there are no bathrooms on the western side of schedule property, but it was mentioned in the chief affidavit that the bathrooms which were constructed long back are in dilapidated condition and commons bathrooms were not in use. Dw.1 deposed in his chief evidence that he has not made any obstruction in the middle of joint pathway. But during cross examination Dw.1 deposed that he has constructed wall of four feet height in the middle of Varasandhu.

Further he deposed that plaintiffs, D3 and house owners of portions No.1 and 2 are obstructed by the wall constructed by him in the Varasandu. Hence, the said evidence of Dw.1 goes to shows that the defendants No.1 and 2 made obstruction in the ABCD pathway by constructing wall. The evidence of Pw.1 and 2 goes to show that there are common bathrooms and because of the construction made by the defendants No.1 and 2, the plaintiffs and owners of other portions were unable to use common bathrooms. So the admission made by Dw.1 goes to show that he constructed wall in the middle of

ABCD pathway and due to that the plaintiffs and other house portions owners were being obstructed by the construction made by defendants No.1 and 2. Hence, the defendants No.1 and 2 are liable to remove the constructions made in the common pathway and the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants

No.1 and 2 to remove the constructions made in the common pathway. Accordingly the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. ISSUE No.5 :-

In view of the findings given by this court in issues No.1 to 4, the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed for.

10

11.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs for the reliefs of a) declaration that the ABCD Path way situated on the western side of house portions No.1 to 6 with a width of 7 ½ feet and length of 120 feet all along is a common pathway for the plaintiffs and defendants No.3 & 4, b) for mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.1 and 2 to install the boring pump which was removed by defendants with their own costs c) for mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.1 and 2 to remove illegal constructions i.e., Dias constructed in the common pathway.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, PJCJ Court, Sattenapalli on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this day of 06 th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- K. Prasanthi

PRL. J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

S ATTENAPALLI .

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff:

PW.1: Pendyala Siva Ramaiah. PW.2: Kannedhara Balaswamy.

For Defendant: DW.1 : Yelinedi Hanumantha Rao.

Exhibits Marked. For Plaintiff:For Defendant: -Nil- Ex.A1: Original sale deed, dt.30.05.2000. Ex.A2: Original sale deed, dt.01.05.2009. Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice, dt.21.06.2010. Ex.A4: Refused postal cover of D1. Ex.A5: Certificate of post of D2. Ex.A6: Six photographs along with CD. Ex.A7: Certified copy of sale deed, dt.30.07.2010. Ex.A8: GPA-Cum-Sale agreement, dt.27.04.2009.

Sd/- K. Prasanthi

PRL. J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

S ATTENAPALLI .

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Ms. K. Prasanthi, M.B.A., LL.B., II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2015.

O.S.634/2014

Between:-

Vasimalla Satyanadha Rao ... Plaintiff.

And

1. P. S. Sabhapathi

2. P. S. Gopi

3. P. S. Khannan ... Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Srikanth, Sri M. Madhavi, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri D. Narayana Murthy, Advocate for defendants 1 to 3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and associates from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property except under due process of law and for costs.

2. Brief averments of the plaint are:-

The plaintiff is practicing as an advocate and tax consultant in noble profession and has been continuing for the last several years and extending whole hearted services to his profession. The plaintiff approached the defendants and joined as a tenant in Room No.5 for the monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- on 1.8.2011 under a registered lease agreement bearing No.9378/2011 dated 1.8.2011. At the time of agreement, the defendants received Rs.1,50,000/- towards advance and the same will be refunded without interest at the time of vacating the premises. The plaintiff got renovated the premises by investing huge amounts out of his earnings. After expiry of the lease agreement on 31.7.2013 the defendants orally agreed to continue the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property by enhancing the rent from Rs.2,000/- till 16.7.2013, thereafter the defendants enhanced the rent amount from 6.8.2013 to Rs.2,500/- for a period of five years. The defendents are also collecting the electricity charges @ Rs.8/-, Rs.10/- and Rs.12/- per unit from the plaintiff as per their whims and fancies. He gave cheques to the defendants through the Syndicate Bank, District Court Branch, Guntur for rent amount to the 3rd defendant or 2nd defendant from 19.7.2012 till 13.6.2014. Thereafter, he paid the rent by way of cash from the month of July, 2014 onwards.

2

In the month of September, 2014 the defendants insisted the plaintiff to enhance rent abnormally from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.6,000/- at a time. Then, he requested the defendants that it was not possible for him to enhance the rent to that extent which is contrary to their oral agreement but to enhance the same reasonably. The defendants demanded him either to pay the enhanced rent or to vacate the premises, otherwise they would demolish the plaint schedule property. Since then the defendants are making hectic efforts to evict the plaintiff and other tenants by force. For the last two months the defendants have been making efforts either in one way or the other so as to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property and have been creating nuisance by disconnecting the electricity service connection, locking the main gate and toilets by making additional locks. On overall requests made by the plaintiff the defendants by leveling additional conditions allowed him to have access to his room. At this juncture, about one month back, the plaintiff and other co- tenants negotiated with the defendants and the defendants agreed not to disturb them from their respective rooms and they further assured that they would not create any hurdles or make nuisance or disconnect any amenities to him. Despite their assurance, the defendants refused to receive rents from the plaintiff and other co-tenants with a malafide intention so as to show them as defaulters and thereby evict them from the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff and other co-tenants paid electricity charges through mee-seva for S.C.No.1113300015529 which is in the name of P.K. Subrahmanyam, the defendants' father. Later, the 1st defendant transferred the electricity connection in his name with a new S.C.No.134971 for the plaint schedule property. About one week prior to filing of the suit the defendants in high handed manner with anti social elements approached and demanded the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule property saying that they are having better rental proposals than the plaintiff and that they are intending to give the plaint schedule property to others. When the plaintiff denied to vacate the schedule property, the defendants and their men threatened him that they could do away with their brutal force if he resists. On 16.11.2014 at mid night the defendants demolished the toilets in the absence of the plaintiff. On 17.11.2014 when the plaintiff entered in the plaint schedule property, he came to know about complete demolition of toilets and water facility. The defendants are trying to disconnect the electricity supply to the schedule property and trying to evict the tenants by hook or crook hampering his livelihood. He apprehends that the defendants may at any time enter into the schedule property and dispossess him from the schedule property by force. The defendants are having political influence and muscle power and they can do anything against the legitimate right of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff is unable to resist the illegal acts of the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men associates from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property except under due process of law.

3.The 3rd defendant filed written statement denying the 3 averments made in the plaint and the same is adopted by defendants 1 and 2 by filing a memo. The 3rd defendant admitted about execution of rent agreement bearing No.9378/2011 for the period from 1.8.2011 till 31.7.2013 between the plaintiff and the defendants. But he denied receiving of any advance amount much less Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff. The 3rd defendant contended that before handing over the premises, the defendants made alterations in the premises and on satisfying with the amenities the plaintiff agreed to take the premises on lease. The plaintiff renovated the premises without prior permission of the defendants in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. There is no renewal of tenancy after expiry of the agreement period. The defendants did not agree for extension of tenancy for further period of five years as stipulated in the agreement. As per the agreement any oral terms and conditions between the parties are not valid. The plaintiff was a defaulter in payment of rent regularly. Even in the agreement period the plaintiff failed to pay the rent regularly and he did not file any rent receipts to that effect. Even the plaint averments are not clear as to the period and the rent that was allegedly agreed to be enhanced by the defendants. There was a broken period in the payment of rent by the plaintiff even as per the averments. The defendants collected Rs.3.85 ps. Per unit upto 1 to 50 units. The defendants have issued rent receipts duly incorporating the electricity charges also. The rent receipts were always issued to the rent paid with the signatures of all the three defendants and the plaintiff. The defendants issued receipts for the payments of rent and electricity charges without fail. The plaintiff was never regular in payment of rent. He used to pay the rent at his convenience. The plaintiff did not make any payment of rent from July, 2014 onwards as alleged in the affidavit. He did not file any receipts in support of his averments. As per the stipulated clause in the rent agreement it should not be pleaded for relaxation in terms and conditions of the agreement and new oral agreement etc., in between the parties and also there is no renewal clause in the agreement. If the plaintiff wants to continue the tenancy he has to obtain a registered agreement for a fresh period from the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff is not a tenant and he is a trespasser in the schedule property. His possession in the schedule property is illegal. The plaintiff has issued cheques towards payment of pending bills for purchase of law books from the 3rd defendant's shop. The 3rd defendant further contended that there is no mention of toilets in the rent agreement schedule. The toilets referred to in the affidavit belong to some other property of the defendants abutting the schedule property. The plaintiff and co tenants have no right over the toilets. The defendants removed the toilets in the month of October, 2014 as they were in dilapidated condition. There is no main gate to the property as alleged by the plaintiff and there is only one passage for all the eight rooms in the same premises. Hence, locking the main gate does not arise. They never disconnected the electricity service connection. The defendants after expiry of rent period requested the plaintiff to vacate the premises so as to make repairs and renovation to the building which is in dilapidated condition. But the plaintiff and other 4 co-tenants did not vacate the premises. The plaintiff and other co-tenants not only committed default in payment of rents willfully to the defendants after expiry of their respective tenancies but also failed to pay the electricity charges. As such, the Electricity Department disconnected the service connection S.C.1113300015529 in the month of June, 2014 as against recovery of Rs.5,870/- from the defendants after adjusting the deposit amount. The plaintiff and other co-tenants failed to pay electricity charges, committed default in payment of rents willfully and have been harassing the land lords i.e., defendants intentionally without vacating the premises. They have not taken steps to get fresh rent agreements. The Electricity Service Connection No.134971 does not belong to the schedule premises. The plaintiff have been consuming the electricity service connection from G. Venkateswara Rao who is neighbouring land lord from July, 2014 onwards illegally. The plaintiff tried to mislead the court to avert that the defendants refused to receive rents from the tenants to show them as defaulters and the same is not permitted under law as it is unsustainable in the eye of law. The plaintiff suppressing all his faults came to the court with unclean hands to seek an equitable relief of permanent injunction on misguiding tactics. There are no grounds what so ever to grant injunction to the wrong doer who is a trespasser. The defendants are law abiding citizens and never took law into their hands. They could not get the plaintiff vacated the premises even after the expiry of the registered rent agreement. The defendants finally prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, associates and confederates from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property except under due process of law?

2. To what relief?

5.To substantiate the case, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1, got examined P.W.2 i.e. third party to the suit and marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of defendants, the 3rd defendant himself is examined as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2.

6.Heard the counsel for defendants and treated as heard on behalf of plaintiff as he called absent and no representation on his behalf.

ISSUE No.1:-

7.It is an admitted fact that plaintiff is tenant in the plaint schedule property as per the lease agreement from 1.8.2011 till 31.7.2013. But it is the contention of the plaintiff that after expiry of the lease agreement in the month of 31.7.2013, the defendants orally agreed to continue him in the plaint schedule property by enhancing the rent from Rs.2000/- till 16.7.2013, thereafter, the defendants enhanced the 5 rent from 6.8.2013 to Rs.2500/- for a period of further five years and the plaintiff paid rent by way of cheques through Syndicate Bank, District Court Complex, Guntur to defendants from 19.7.2012 till 13.6.2014 and thereafter he paid the rent by way of cash from July, 2014 onwards. It is also contended by the plaintiff from the month of September, 2014 onwards the defendants insisted him to enhance rent abnormally from Rs.2500/- to Rs.6000/- at a time and demanded to pay the enhanced rent or to vacate the premises. Hence, he prayed to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property except under due process of law.

8.On the other hand, the defendants filed their written statement and denied that they orally agreed to continue the plaintiff after expiry of lease agreement in the month of 31.7.2013 and also denied the payment of the rent from 19.7.2012 till 13.6.2014 by way of cheques and by way of cash from July 2014 onwards. The defendants also contended in the written statement that there is no renewal of tenancy after expiry of the agreement period and the plaintiff was a defaulter in payment of rent regularly, even in the agreement period. Thus, the plaintiff is not a tenant and he is trespasser in the plaint schedule property and the cheques issued by the plaintiff are relating to the pending bills for purchase of law books from the 3rd defendant shop.

9.In order to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, he himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the rent receipt dated 12.1.2013. Ex.A2 is the telephone bill dated 6.11.2014. Ex.A3 is the Syndicate Bank Savings Account Pass Book of plaintiff dated 13.1.2012. On perusal of Ex.A3, the Pass Book in the name of plaintiff, the amounts were credited to the account of defendants from 19.7.2012 till 13.6.2014 on different dates. The learned counsel for defendants cross examined P.W.1. Most of the cross examination of P.W.1 is in respect of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement

dated 1.8.2011 and payment of rents by the plaintiff. P.W.1 was

suggested during cross examination that as he has been residing in the plaint schedule property without paying the rents and electricity charges upon the direction of defendants the electricity department disconnected electricity supply to plaint schedule property. He denied the suggestion. P.W.1 was also suggested that as he is in unauthorized occupation the defendants demanded him to vacate the plaint schedule property.

10.P.W.2 filed his chief affidavit with similar contentions to the chief affidavit of P.W.1. During cross examination, P.W.2 deposed that the defendants behaved highhandedly and demanded the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule property. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 to show that the defendants did not interfere into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property.

11.On behalf of defendants, the 3rd defendant himself is examined as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2. Ex.B1 is the rent agreement dated 1.8.2011. Ex.B2 is the Letter of the Assistant Accounts Officer, APSPDCL, Guntur along with receipt dated 27.6.2014. D.W.1 6 filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint. During cross examination D.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff is a tenant of the plaint schedule property. He deposed that in Ex.A4 i.e., 11 rent receipts the total amount was collected for rent plus electricity charges. D.W.1 also deposed that the Ex.A5 is in the name of his father. D.W.1 also deposed that he did not take steps to evict the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property under due process of law. Admittedly, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as a tenant. But the contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff committed default in payment of rents and the cheques issued by the plaintiff are relating to the payment of pending bills for purchase of law books from 3rd defendant's shop. But no document is filed by the defendants to substantiate the said contention. If the version of the defendants is true that the plaintiff is a defaulter he has to file a Rent Control Case before concerned Rent Controller on the ground of willful default to evict the plaintiff. Once the plaintiff is tenant in the plaint schedule property, the defendants cannot evict him without following due process of law.

12.Another contention of the defendants is that there is no renewal of tenancy after expiry of lease agreement and the plaintiff is not a tenant but a trespasser as he did not take steps to execute fresh lease agreement. The plaintiff by relying on Ex.A3 proved that he sent the rent to defendants by way of cheque, but the defendants failed to prove that after expiry of lease period the plaintiff failed to pay the rent. So far as the defendants accept the rents from the plaintiff, the plaintiff is a tenant by holding over within the meaning of Section 116 of Transfer of Property At, 1882. Otherwise, they are tenants at sufferance. In either case the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. In this regard, this court relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in R.V. Bhupal Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1996 SC 140: 1995 SCC(5) 698, wherein it was held:- “The possession of a tenant who had ceased to be a tenant, after expiry or termination of lease is protected by law until he is duly ejected. Although he may not have a legal right to continue in possession after termination of tenancy or after expiry of the tenancy, his possession was at sufferance recognized to be juridical and that possession is protected by common law.” During cross examination, D.W.1 deposed that he did not initiate steps to evict the plaintiff from plaint schedule property. So the possession of plaintiff is protected by law until he is duly evicted even after expiry of tenancy. P.W.1 stated in his chief evidence that the defendants are making hectic efforts either in one way or other so as to dispossess him from plaint schedule property and have been creating nuisance by disconnecting the electricity service connection, locking main gate, toilets. The evidence of P.W.1 is also supported by P.W.2. The defendants in their written statement contended that after expiry of rent agreement they requested the plaintiff to vacate the premises so as to make repairs and renovation to schedule property and also contended that the plaintiff is a willful defaulter in payment of rents. In both the cases the defendants have to initiate proceedings for eviction of the plaintiff from plaint schedule property. Even during cross examination, 7

P.W.1 was suggested that as he is in illegal occupation the defendants demanded him to vacate the plaint schedule property. Hence, it is clear that in one way or the other the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from plaint schedule property. In view of aforesaid circumstances, if no injunction is granted the defendants may evict the plaintiff from plaint schedule property without following due process of law. Even if an injunction is granted the defendants may initiate proceedings for eviction of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. So, no loss or damage will be caused to the defendants even if an order of injunction is granted. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

ISSUE No.2:-

13.In view of findings given by this court in issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for.

14.In the result, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and associates from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as a tenant except under due process of law. Considering the facts and circumstances, both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of May, 2015.

Sd./- K. Prasanthi,

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff:For defendants:

PW1: Vasimalla Satyanadha RaoDW1: P.S. Kannan PW2: Vasimalla Sekhar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff:-

Ex.A112.1.2013Rent receipt. Ex.A26.11.2014Telephone Bill. Ex.A313.1.2012Syndicate Bank Savings Account Pass Book of plaintiff. Ex.A4–Rent Receipts 14 in number. Ex.A5–Electricity bill Payment Receipts 3 in number.

8

For defendants:-

Ex.B11.8.2011Rent Agreement. Ex.A527.6.2014Letter of the Assistant Accounts Officer, APSPDCL, Guntur along with receipt.

Sd./- K. Prasanthi,

II A.J.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Ms. K. Prasanthi, M.B.A., LL.B., II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2015.

O.S.192/2013

Between:

1. Akula Siva Sankar

2. Akula Venkateswara Rao

3. Akula Bhagya Lakshmi ... Plaintiff.

And

1. Vellamati Benni

2. Kakarla Chowdaiah ... Defendants.

This suit is coming on 6.5.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J. Narasimha Rao, Sri J. Papa Rao, Advocates for the plaintiffs and of Sri D. Srinivasa Rao, Smt. K. Srujana, Advocates for defendants 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants a) to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and consequential recovery of possession of the same from the illegal occupation of the defendants 1 and 2 and for costs.

2. Brief averments of the plaint are:-

The father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, husband of 3rd plaintiff Akula Nageswara Rao was granted allotment order in respect of the plaint schedule property out of 213 square yards of site by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur dated 24.3.1996 as an alternative measure as he was vacated from the site in T.S.No.12/1, 10 of Guntur Town. Said Akula Nageswara Rao was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property along with other remaining site in 213 square yards of site till his death dated 7.2.2002. On his death, the plaint schedule property has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 being sons and wife of late Akula Nageswara Rao. The defendants are having houses on the southern side of the plaint schedule property which are clearly shown in the plaint plan. While so, the defendants who are not having any respect to law and order used to grab the others land and they are known for highhanded and illegal attitude. The plaintiffs being poor and weak persons could not construct the house in the schedule property along with remaining site in 213 square yards and kept vacant. While so the defendants who are having their own site on the southern side of the plaint schedule property and at about 3 years ago they got constructed their respective houses with compound wall by encroaching into plaint 2 schedule property to the extent of 12 square yards by the 1st defendant and an extent of 10 square yards by the 2nd defendant without knowledge of the plaintiffs. Recently when the plaintiff measured the entire site of 213 square yards which was allotted by the Government found the illegal encroachment by the defendants on the southern side of the plaint schedule property. Thereupon, the 2nd plaintiff applied to the Guntur Municipal Corporation authorities to measure the plaint schedule property by the Municipal Town Surveyor. Thereupon, on 7.8.2012 the Town Surveyor of Municipal Corporation measured the plaint schedule property as well as the property of the defendants 1 and 2 and also neighbouring sites of other owners and found that there is an encroachment of 12 square yards by the 1st defendant and 10 square yards of site by the 2nd defendant on southern side of 213 square yards of site which was allotted to Akula Nageswara Rao who is father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 which is part and parcel of plaint schedule property and made constructions therein. In the presence of Town Surveyor, the defendants agreed to remove the encroachment on the southern side of the plaint schedule property within short time in order to get construction of house by the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property. But, subsequently the defendants have been dodging the matter on one pretext or other and finally at about 4 days prior to filing of the suit, the defendants refused to remove the constructions made in the southern side of the plaint schedule property by threatening the plaintiffs to implicate them into false cases and also informed to the plaintiffs to do whatever they like. The plaintiffs being weak and meek persons could not resist the illegal acts of the defendants without the aid of the court. Hence, the plaintiffs constrained to file the suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of 22 square yards of site on the southern side of the plaint schedule property and consequential recovery of possession of the same from the illegal occupation of the defendants 1 and 2.

3.The 2nd defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and the same is adopted by 1st defendant by filing a memo. The 2nd defendant contended that the defendants who are the bonafide purchasers of their respective properties are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective properties since the date of purchase by constructing their respective houses to the knowledge of one and all including the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 till his death and to the knowledge of the plaintiffs also. The father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 was also present at the time of fixation of the boundary stones and the defendants constructed their houses within their site and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. During the life time of father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 he never raised any objection with regard to the alleged encroachment of site. The plaintiffs also never raised any objection and surprisingly they came up with this false suit by making false and frivolous claims. The defendants never encroached any part of the site belonging to the plaintiffs and they being the bonafide purchasers for value of their respective properties, they are at liberty to deal with the same in their own right, title and possession. The 2nd defendant further contended that without prejudice to their contention, they contended that even otherwise the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession also which is to the 3 knowledge of the plaintiffs also. The father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 during his life time never raised any objection while the constructions are being made by the defendants. The plaintiffs also never raised their little finger at any point of time. The possession of the property by the defendants is valid under law and they cannot disturb. The plaintiffs are not entitled to seek recovery of the alleged site. The measurements mentioned in the document obtained by the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 do not bind the defendants as they are not parties to the said document. On enquiry the defendants came to know that the plaintiffs who are having an eye over the plaint schedule property with an intention to grab the property, they hatched up a plan and resorted to file the present suit with all false allegations. The suit is nothing but speculative one filed only to somehow pressurize the defendants to succumb to their dictates. Merely basing on the recitals in the document obtained by the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, they cannot proceed against the defendants by making false claims and he finally prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the 22 square yards of the plaint schedule property and consequential recovery of possession of the same from the illegal occupation of the defendants 1 and 2?

2. To what relief?

5.To substantiate the case, the 2nd plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1, got examined P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of defendants, the defendants 1 and 2 are examined as D.Ws.1 and 2 and got examined D.W.3 and marked Exs.B1 and B2.

6.Heard the counsel for plaintiffs and treated as heard on behalf of defendants as they called absent and no representation on their behalf.

ISSUE No.1:-

7.It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule property was allotted to one Akula Nageswara Rao who is the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and husband of 3rd plaintiff and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till his death i.e., 7.2.2002 and on his death the plaint schedule property has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, while so the defendants 1 and 2 who are the southern side house owners of the plaint schedule property illegally encroached 12 square yards by the 1st defendant and 10 square yards by the 2nd defendant and same was confirmed by the Town Surveyor, Guntur Municipal Corporation, after measuring the same. It is also contended that the defendants having accepted to remove the encroachments made in the southern side of the plaint schedule property, subsequently, refused to comply the same and threatening the plaintiffs with dire consequences. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute 4 owners of the 22 square yards of the plaint schedule property and consequential recovery of possession of the same from the illegal occupation of the defendants 1 and 2. On the other hand, the defendants filed their written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that they never encroached any part of the site belonging to the plaintiffs and they being the bonafide purchasers of their respective properties are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective properties since the date of purchase by constructing their respective houses. It is also contended that the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 was also present at the time of fixation of boundary stones and the defendants constructed their houses within their site and are in possession and enjoyment of the same, but the plaintiffs had an eye over the plaint schedule property and trying to grab the property. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit.

8.In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1, examined the Town Surveyor as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 on behalf of plaintiffs. As per the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1 the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and husband of 3rd plaintiff by name Akula Nageswara Rao was granted site in respect of 213 square yards situated in S.No.670/3 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur dated 24.3.1996, since then the father of plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of said property till his death. Ex.A2 is the death certificate of Akula Nageswara Rao. It is also stated by P.W.1 that after death of said Akula Nageswara Rao, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of property covered under Ex.A1 and recently as they intend to construct house in the 213 square yards of vacant site, 2nd plaintiff applied to Municipal Corporation, Guntur to measure the properties. As per the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A3, 2nd plaintiff applied to Municipal authorities to measure the property allotted to father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 under Ex.A1 i.e. an extent of 213 square yards situated in S.No.670/3 Plot No.14 and the Municipal Commissioner, Guntur has given endorsement under Ex.A3 on 12.2.2013 that the 1st defendant encroached an extent of 12 square yards and 10 square yards by 2nd defendant on southern side of plaintiffs' property. During cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that defendants purchased their properties from Kondaiah and they did not raise any objection at the time of construction of houses by the defendants. P.W.1 identified the houses shown in photographs Exs.B1 and B2 belonging to the defendants. A perusal of Exs.B1 and B2, there are houses constructed with compound wall. By the side of houses, there is a vacant site.

9.In support of the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs examined the Town Surveyor, Guntur Municipal Corporation and got marked Exs.A4 and A5. P.W.2 stated in his chief examination that his predecessor conducted the survey on the application filed by the 2nd plaintiff. P.W.2 deposed as per the record available with him, the Surveyor visited plot No.14 measured the said plot as per the layout plan after issuance of notice to neighbouring land owners on 2.8.2012 and issued Ex.A4. Ex.A4 is the attested copy of report of Town Surveyor dated 31.1.2013.

5

10.A perusal of Ex.A4, the Town Surveyor issued notices to neighbouring owners of plaintiff's property, measured the property and found that 1st defendant encroached an extent of 12 square yards and 2nd defendant encroached an extent of 10 square yards. P.W.2 also stated that Ex.A3 endorsement was issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Guntur basing on the report given by Town Surveyor

dated 31.1.2013 under Ex.A4. During cross examination, P.W.2

deposed that as per the record notices were issued to the neighbouring land owners. He also deposed that on behalf of defendants notices were received by one Y. Sunetha and K. Bhulakshmi. P.W.2 further also deposed that as per the statements recorded by Town Surveyor dated 10.8.2012 marked under Ex.A5, the defendants 1 and 2 were present when the properties were measured and Ex.A5 i.e., the Statements bears the signature of defendants 1 and 2. So, the plaintiffs by examining P.W.2 proved that Town Surveyor measured the properties as per layout plan after issuance of notices to neighbouring land owners and has given Ex.A4 report and as per Ex.A5 i.e., statements recorded by the Town Surveyor, the defendants 1 and 2 were present at the time of measurement of properties.

11.In order to prove the case of defendants, the defendants 1 and 2 were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2. D.Ws.1 and 2 filed their chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the written statement. Both D.Ws.1 and 2 stated in their chief evidence that they never encroached the plaintiffs' site but being bonafide purchasers of their properties, they constructed houses in their respective properties. During cross examination, D.W.1 deposed that his father purchased the vacant site an extent of 97 square yards in the year 2000 from one Kondaiah under agreement of sale, constructed house under Indiramma scheme and he has been paying municipal tax to his house since 2003. But neither the agreement of sale nor the tax receipts were filed by the D.W.1. Even no document is filed by the D.W.1 to show the extent of his property. He also deposed that the Surveyor measured the properties. During cross examination, D.W.2 deposed that he purchased an extent of 101 square yards from Katta Kondaiah under possessory agreement of sale and raised dhaba house in his site under Indiramma Housing Scheme. He also deposed that the plaint schedule property is situated towards northern side of his property and 1st defendant's property. Surveyor measured their properties. As per the evidence of D.W.3 the property in which the houses of defendants were constructed originally belongs to one Vistupalli Basivireddy, said property fell in the purview of Urban Land Ceiling, by suppressing the facts the Basivireddy sold the property to Katta Kondaiah, said Kondaiah sold the 2 plots to defendants 1 and 2. D.W.3 also deposed that both the defendants constructed houses in their respective properties. During cross examination, D.W.3 deposed that contents of his chief affidavit were stated to him by the defendants but he is not having personal knowledge. So, from the cross examination of D.W.3, it is clear that D.W.3 is not having personal knowledge about the contents of his chief affidavit. So, the evidence of D.W.3 is not useful to the case of defendants. As per the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2, they purchased their respective properties from Katta Kondaiah under possessory agreement of sale and constructed houses in their respective properties and paying municipal tax. But no document is filed by the defendants 6 with regard to their respective properties. Even no document is filed to show that they did not encroach into plaintiffs' site but constructed houses with compound wall in their respective properties. There is no documentary evidence on record to show the extent of properties of defendants and to show that the defendants did not encroach the plaintiffs' site and constructed houses within their respective properties.

12.On the other hand, the plaintiffs by examining P.W.2, the Town Surveyor and marking Exs.A3 & A4 could establish that the 1st defendant encroached an extent of 12 square yards and 2nd defendant encroached an extent of 10 square yards into plaintiffs' site and the said 22 square yards which is the plaint schedule property is included in the property covered under Ex.A1. Since the plaintiffs are able to establish their title over the plaint schedule property and the defendants are unable to prove their title, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration. So, the defendants who are in possession of the plaint schedule property are liable to deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs who are the absolute owners of the same. As such, this court holds that the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and consequential recovery of possession as prayed for. This issue is answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

ISSUE No.2:-

13.In view of findings given by this court in issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and consequential recovery of possession as prayed for. The defendants are directed to deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of judgment and decree.

14.In the result, suit is decreed declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of 22 square yards of plaint schedule property. Consequentially, the defendants are directed to deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs within three months from the date of the judgment and decree. Both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of May, 2015.

Sd./- K. Prasanthi,

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiffs:-For defendants:-

PW1: Akula Venkateswara RaoDW1: Vellamati Benni PW2: B. Lakshmi NarayanaDW2: Kakarla Chowdaiah Town Surveyor. DW3: Nallamekala Mastan Rao 7

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiffs:-

Ex.A124.3.1996Proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur in

Rc.No.2062/1995.

Ex.A228.2.2002Death Certificate of Akula Nageswara Rao. Ex.A312.2.2013Endorsment given by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Guntur. Ex.A431.1.2013Attested copy of report of Town Surveyor. Ex.A531.1.2013Attested copy of report of Town Surveyor.

For defendants:-

Ex.B1--Photograph. Ex.B2--Photograph.

Ild./- K. Prasanthi,

II A.J.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Ms. K. Prasanthi, M.B.A., LL.B., II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2015.

O.S.572/2014

Between:

Sankara Venkat Rao ... Plaintiff.

And

Shaik Habebunniasa ... Defendant.

This suit is coming on 7.5.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Gopichand, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K. Ramesh, Sri K.V.S. Kotireddy, Advocates for the defendant and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Suit is filed for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.41,141-66 ps from the defendant with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of decree till realization and for costs.

2. Brief averments of the plaint are:-

The plaintiff is working as a doctor by profession. His father Dr. S. Mallikharjuna Rao and his grand father Dr. S.Venkata Rao was also in the same profession as doctors. The plaintiff's grand father was one of the first famous M.B.B.S. Doctors in Guntur town in early days. The plaintiff has got good reputation in the society as a doctor. Even today also the plaintiff rendering his services to the needy people. The plaintiff has got immovable properties in his own. One of the building is situated at D.No.21-12-1/A, Chowtra Centre, Guntur. He sold away the said property i.e., plaint schedule property to Shaik AbdulKareem on 25.6.2014 with a valid consideration and the same was registered as document No.7756/2014 in Sub Registrar Office, Guntur. The said building has got three shops and the other two shops were also sold away on the same day to the others. Previously the defendant was the tenant in the plaint schedule property till the date when the plaintiff sold the schedule property to Shaik Abdul Kareem. The defendant is not in a habit of paying rent regularly. Lastly she paid rent upto September, 2011 in the month of October, 2011. As on the date of filing suit, she paid total four months rent. In previous occasions also she had paid rent as her wish and will i.e., 25 months and 30 months at once. Whenever the plaintiff received the rent he endorsed the same in the note book which was in the custody of the defendant. After disposal of plaint schedule property, Shaik Abdul Kareem is the absolute owner of the property. The defendant knowing fully well that the said property was sold away by plaintiff to Shaik Abdul Kareem, the defendant agreed to vacate the schedule property after the registration. Contrary to that the defendant approached the plaintiff in the month of July, 2014 and requested him to receive the rent for the months of June, July, 2014 at the rate of Rs.1250/- per month. Then the plaintiff stated to her that he sold away the property to said Shaik Abdul Kareem on 25.8.2014 and if 2 the defendant wants to continue as tenant she has to approach the new owner. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the arrears of rent from October, 2011 to till he sold the schedule property i.e., 25.6.2014 i.e., 33 months. All of a sudden the defendant got issued legal notice that she deposited one lack rupees as advance amount of the plaint schedule property and the defendant paid rent for June, July 2014 to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff bluntly refused to receive the said amount except no other way the defendant send D.D.No.375400 dated 16.7.2014 towards the rent for the months of June and July, 2014. In the notice the defendant admitted about her relationship with the plaintiff as tenant and landlord and she also admitted that she paid rent upto 29.10.2011. The plaintiff got issued reply notice dated 19.7.2014 to the defendant and he returned the demand draft and demanded the defendant to pay the arrears of rent amount immediately in the said notice. On 24.7.2014 the defendant got issued reply notice with false allegations. In the said notice in para No.3 she claimed that she was in adverse possession of the notice schedule property long back. On 4.8.2014 the plaintiff got issued suitable reply. Later, the defendant filed

OS.392/2014 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur against

the plaintiff, in that suit one Shaik Abdul Kareem was 2nd defendant. In that suit, she requested the court to grant permanent injunction in the main suit and temporary injunction in I.A.377/2014. Finally the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 5.9.2014 and he received reply notice on 11.9.2014, in that notice the defendant stated false averments. The defendant has an intention to avoid rent to the plaintiff and to grab the property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of rent.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. She contended that prior to filing of the suit the defendant issued legal notice to the plaintiff on 16.7.2014 that she also approached the plaintiff several times to pay the rent for the months of June and July 2014, but the plaintiff bluntly refused the same. The defendant in the notice requested the plaintiff to receive rent and stop hectic efforts in evicting the defendant from the schedule property. Immediately, the defendant sent an amount of Rs.2500/- vide D.D.No.375400, dated 16.7.2014 drawn on Syndicate Bank, District Court Compound, Guntur and the said Demand Drafts were filed as documents in O.S.392/2014. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff's counsel gave reply notice dated 19.7.2014 stating in para No.5 that the defendant sold the notice schedule property on 25.6.2014 for valuable sale consideration to one Shaik Abdul Kareem under document No.7756/2014 of SRO, Guntur and delivered possession of the same to the said Kareem. From the date of registration, the relation between the defendant and the plaintiff as tenant and landlord stands closed. She further contended that the counsel for plaintiff gave reply notice stating in para No.6 that at the time of delivery of possession of the schedule property, the plaintiff clearly admitted and promised before the elders that the defendant will vacate the premises within 4 or 5 days i.e., at the end of June, 2014. The purchaser of the property also accepted the plaintiff's proposal. Hence, the plaintiff has no connection in respect of the schedule property as landlord. As per para No.6 of the notice issued by plaintiff, it is clear that the defendant and his ancestors also continuing as tenants in the plaint schedule property from 1974 onwards and the plaintiff had not issued any notice to vacate the premises by paying 33 months rent amounts to him.

3

The plaintiff with an intention to avoid to return the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant colluded with another tenant by name Shaik Abdul Kareem and sold the plaint schedule property to him. The plaintiff intentionally avoided to pay advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant. The defendant paid an amount of Rs.450/- only per month towards rent of shop/godown at the end of 2011 as per that the plaintiff endorsed the same in his rent received book. The plaintiff illegally demanded the defendant to pay the rent for 33 months from October 2011 to June 2014. The plaintiff finally endorsed in his rent received book dated 29.10.2011 and he filed the said book in O.S.392/2014. It clearly bears the endorsement as 'received the sum of Rs.1800/- at the rate of Rs.450/- per month for the month of June, July, August and September, 2011 in full. It clearly shows that the shop rent abnormally increased by the plaintiff from Rs.450/- to Rs.1250/-. If the defendant did not pay any rent for a period three months the plaintiff have a right to issue notice to the defendant but the plaintiff kept quite without issuing any notice to the defendant from October, 2011 to June, 2014. The plaintiff issued a notice while the suit was pending before the court and the defendant sent reply to the said notice. The plaintiff sold the plaint schedule property without intimating to her to the 3rd party with collusive manner to avoid payment of defendant's deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendant is not defaulter of 33 months of arrear rents and she demanded the plaintiff to pay advance amount with interest. From the date of registration the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff as tenant and landlord stands closed. The suit is not maintainable in the eye of law and finally she prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.41,041-66 ps. towards arrears of rent for 33 months i.e., from October, 2011 to June, 2014 with subsequent interest at 24% per annum as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5.To substantiate his case, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1, marked Exs.A1 to A6. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendant, the defendant herself is examined as D.W.1, got examined D.Ws.2 and 3 but no documents are marked on her behalf.

6.Heard both sides.

ISSUE No.1:-

7.The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.41,041-66 ps. towards arrears of rent for 33 months i.e. from October, 2011 to June, 2014 at the rate of Rs.1250/- per month. The defendant has taken a plea that she is not defaulter in payment of rents to the plaintiff and so she is not liable to pay the arrears of rent for 33 months to the plaintiff. Hence, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent for 33 months at the rate of Rs.1250/- per month from October, 2011 to June, 2014. In support of his case, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. P.W.1 stated in his chief 4 examination that the defendant is a tenant of the plaint schedule property till he sold the property to one Abdul Kareem on 25.6.2014. As per the evidence of P.W.1, after disposal of property the defendant got issued legal notice to him on 16.7.2014 under Ex.A1 and also the defendant sent Demand Draft for an amount of Rs.2500/- rent for the month of June, July, 2014. As per the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A2, the plaintiff got issued reply notice to the defendant on 19.7.2014 under Ex.A2 and returned the demand draft along with notice and demanded her to produce recorded evidence for the allegations in Ex.A1. As per the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A3, the defendant received Ex.A2 and got issued reply notice on 24.7.2014 under Ex.A3. As per the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A4 and A5, the plaintiff got issued legal notices under Exs.A4 and A5 demanding the defendant to pay arrears of rent at the rate of RS.1250/- per month from October, 2011 till he sold the plaint schedule property to Abdul Kareem i.e., 25.6.2014. A perusal of Ex.A1, the defendant got issued legal notice on 16.7.2014 to the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff received the rent upto 29.10.2011 and made endorsement in a note book, the rent was enhanced from time to time and at present the rent is Rs.1250/- per month, that when the defendant approached the plaintiff to pay the rent for the months of June and July, 2014, the plaintiff refused to receive the same, so the defendant sent the demand draft for Rs.2500/- towards rent for the months of June, July, 2014. A perusal of Ex.A2 the plaintiff got issued reply notice to the notice under Ex.A1 stating that the plaint schedule property was sold to one Abdul Kareem, the plaintiff returned the demand draft sent by defendant along with Ex.A1 by demanding to pay the arrears of rent. A perusal of Ex.A3, the defendant got issued legal notice to plaintiff under Ex.A3 stating that she is not due to the plaintiff and has been paying the rents regularly. A perusal of Ex.A4 the same was issued by the plaintiff to defendant denying the averments of Ex.A3. A perusal of Ex.A5, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant demanding the defendant to pay arrears of rent for 33 months from October, 2011 to June, 2014 at the rate of Rs.1250/- per month. A perusal of Ex.A6 the defendant got issued reply notice to Ex.A5 denying the averments of Ex.A5. So, there is exchange of legal notices between plaintiff and defendant in respect of the rent for the plaint schedule property.

8.It is admitted by the defendant in Ex.A1 that the plaintiff received rent upto 29.10.2011 and made endorsement in the note book but she stated in Ex.A1 that rent was enhanced from time to time and the rent as on 16.7.2014 was Rs.1250/- per month. During cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that he received the rent from the defendant till September, 2011 at Rs.450/- per month. He also deposed that he requested the defendant since long time to pay the rent at Rs.1250/- per month but she paid at Rs.450/- per month and at last she sent the demand draft for two months at the rate of Rs.1250/- per month. P.W.1 also deposed that he did not file any documentary proof to show that the defendant has to pay the arrears of rent for 33 months.

9.On behalf of defendant, the defendant herself is examined as D.W.1 and also examined a witness as D.W.2 on her behalf. D.W.1 stated in her chief affidavit that she is not liable to pay the arrears of rent for 33 months to the plaintiff as she never committed default and has regularly paid the rents. She also stated that the plaintiff is trying to evict her and 5 also demanding to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance and enhance the rent to Rs.7000/- and that she got issued legal notice to the plaintiff on 16.7.2014 to receive the rent for the months of June and July, 2014 and sent Demand Draft for Rs.2500/- per month for the months of June, July, 2014. Since this suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent so this court cannot look into the interference by the defendant into possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. During cross examination, D.W.1 admitted that the plaintiff received the rents upto 29.10.2011 and made endorsement in the note book.

10.D.W.3 the son of D.W.1 filed his chief affidavit with similar contentions to the chief affidavit of D.W.1. During cross examination, D.W.3 also admitted that as per the note book endorsement the last date of payment of rent was 29.10.2011. Though the defendant denied that she is not liable to pay arrears of rent for 33 months but in Ex.A1 legal notice issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, it was stated that the plaintiff received rent upto 29.10.2011 and made endorsement in a note book. Even D.Ws.1 and 3 admitted during cross examination that plaintiff received rent upto 29.10.2011. So, the plaintiff could establish that the defendant paid rent upto September, 2011 and is liable to pay the arrears of rent from October, 2011. Regarding the rate of rent the defendant stated in Ex.A1 legal notice that the rent was enhanced from time to time and as on date of Ex.A1, the rent was Rs.1250/- per month. So, she sent demand draft for the months of June and July, 2014 at Rs.1250/- per month. Hence, the burden lies on plaintiff to prove that rent was Rs.1250/- per month from October, 2011 onwards. Except Ex.A5 i.e., legal notice there is no document to show that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.1250/- per month from October, 2011 onwards. During cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that the defendant paid Rs.450/- per month till September, 2011 and he also deposed that he has been requesting the defendant to pay Rs.1250/- per month since long time but the defendant did not pay. So, except the oral evidence of P.W.1 there is no other document to show that rent was enhanced to Rs.1250/- long back but the defendant paid only Rs.450/- per month. Even there is no pleading in the plaint that the rent was Rs.1250/- as on October, 2011. Hence, plaintiff failed to prove that the rent was Rs.1250/- per month as on October, 2011 and so the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of arrears of rent for 33 months at the rate of of Rs.1250/- per month. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.2:-

11. In view of findings given by this court in issue No.1, the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of arrears of rent for 33 months at the rate of Rs.1250/- per month and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

12.In the result, the suit is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the suit, both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of May, 2015. Sd./- K. Prasanthi,

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff:For defendant:-

PW1: Sankara Venkat RaoDW1: Shaik Habebunnisa DW2: Shaik Taydul (eschewed) DW3: Shaik Maaz Ahmed

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff :

Ex.A116.7.2014Legal notice. Ex.A219.7.2014Office copy of reply notice. Ex.A324.7.2014Legal notice. Ex.A44.8.2014Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A55.9.2014Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A611.9.2014Reply notice.

For defendant : NIL

Ild./- K. Prasanthi,

II A.J.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Ms. K. Prasanthi, M.B.A., LL.B., II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2015.

O.S.23/2013

Between:

Peddi Sivaiah ... Plaintiff.

And

Ilapavaluri Adiseshaiah ... Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Santha Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri C. Venkata Ramaiah, Sri Y.V.N.H. Prasad, Advocates for the defendant and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and supporters from in any way disrupting or obstructing in running the business of Mobile Shop of the plaintiff and in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by plaintiff till he is evicted by due process of law and for costs.

2. Brief averments of the plaint are:-

The plaintiff is the tenant of the defendant in respect of suit schedule property a shop at D.No.9-1-6/8, 2nd line, Railpet. The defendant leased out the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a period of two years from 24.8.2002 to 23.8.2004 at Rs.1250/- per month which is payable by 5th of every subsequent month and to obtain receipt in respect of said tenancy. As per the terms of the lease

dated 24.8.2002 the defendant asked for an advance amount of

Rs.60,000/- which will be refunded at the time of vacating the shop without interest. The plaintiff paid Rs.60,000/- towards advance for the suit schedule shop on 22.8.2002 by way of cheque to defendant and the defendant handed over possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff invested huge amount beyond his capacity to develop his business. Since then the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit schedule property by running STD Booth, Photostat Machine in the name and style of 'Srinivasa Photostat' and he has been regularly paying the rent to the defendant without default and duly obtaining receipts from him. The plaintiff also obtained registration certificate from the Government for running photostat machine. Later, the defendant orally agreed to continue the plaintiff even after 23.8.2004 as tenant. Accordingly, the plaintiff obtained certificate of registration for establishment of mobile shop in the suit schedule property after obtaining consent from the defendant. The plaintiff had invested more than Rs.6,00,000/- and has been in continuous possession of the schedule property by running business under the 2 name of 'Rushi Mobiles'. Since then the tenancy has been extended by enhancing the rent from time to time. Accordingly, the plaintiff being a tenant is regular in payment of rent and has been continuing his business till now. Surprisingly, the defendant refused to receive monthly rent for the month of December, 2012 at Rs.2000/-. The plaintiff has sent the same through money order to the defendant on 17.1.2013. Now the defendant is disrupting the business of the plaintiff for few days and proclaiming that he would throw out the material of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule premises. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and supporters from causing obstruction to the plaintiff in running his business in peaceful manner.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. He contended that the suit is bad for suppresio-vari and suggestio falsi. The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. He suppressed the real facts and filed the suit with all false allegations to gain wrongfully and squat on the property illegally. The defendant further submitted that he is a law abiding citizen and does not have faith in forceful methods. He does not have any political strength or money power. He is a middle man and unemployed at present. Earlier, he used to do business in sale of empty bottles and subsequently stopped the same in view of the policies of the government resulting non remunerative. He is residing in a rented house. The schedule property is part of other adjoining portions of the defendant and all the portions are under the occupation of the tenants since decades. The plaint schedule property along with other portions of the property is an old building aged 105 years. It is leaking and is in dangerous position. The defendant further submitted that he desires to have his own business in the property and also occupy the same for his residence. In view of the same, he requested the tenants including the plaintiff to vacate the schedule property so as to enable him to demolish the entire building and construct new building for his residence and business. The request is being made since two years. Though the plaintiff and other tenants wee promising to vacate their respective portions but failed to keep up their promises and the plaintiff surprisingly resorted to file the suit. The plaintiff also induced another tenant to file a similar suit against the defendant with all false allegations. The tenants including the plaintiff are demanding huge amount as compensation for having occupied the premises as tenants since decades. This is very unfair on their part. The property is situated in the prime locality of Guntur Town and it is located just near the Railway Station and opposite to Government General Hospital, Guntur separated by a road. They have been enjoying the property on very low rents. The defendant never interfered with the business of the plaintiff and he has no intention to interfere. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. For creating cause of action, the plaintiff resorted to make false allegations. By filing the present suit, the plaintiff made it clear that he does not want to keep up his promise and cling on to the property. As law abiding citizen, the defendant filed R.C.C.10/2013 on the file of Rent Controller, Guntur against the plaintiff 3 for eviction. The defendant has taken steps for eviction of the plaintiff by following due process of law. As such, there is no cause of action survived to the plaintiff and finally he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by my predecessor for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5.To substantiate the case, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1, got examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 and A2. On behalf of defendant, the defendant himself is examined as D.W.1 and marked no documents.

6.Heard both sides.

ISSUE No.1:-

7.It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is tenant of plaint schedule property, the defendant had leased out the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a period of 2 years from 24.8.2002 to 23.8.2004 at Rs.1250/- per month, that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule shop by running STD Booth, Photostat machine under the name and style of 'Srinivasa Photostat' and also running business under the name and style of 'Rushi Mobiles'. It is further also contended that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the defendant towards advance for the plaint schedule property, has invested more than Rs.6,00,000/- for the schedule shop and has been regularly paying the rents to defendant, but the defendant refused to receive the monthly rent for the month of December, 2012 and proclaiming that he would throw out the material from plaint schedule shop if the plaintiff does not vacate the shop. On the other hand, the defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the defendant is a middleman, law abiding citizen. It is also contended that the plaint schedule property is part of the building which is aged 105 years, said building comprises of other portions which are under occupation of tenants, and that the defendant desires to have his own business in the building and also occupy the same for his residence as he is residing in a rented house. It is further also contended that defendant requested the tenants in the building including the plaintiff to vacate the premises so as to enable him to demolish the entire building and construct new building for his residence and business, but the defendant never interfered with the business of plaintiff, as a law abiding citizen he filed RCC 10/2013 on the file of Rent Controller, Guntur for eviction of plaintiff from the schedule property.

8.In a suit for perpetual injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his lawful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and interference by the defendant into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule 4 property.

9.In order to substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. P.W.1 filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint. Ex.A1 is the rent receipt dated 10.1.2011 and rent receipt dated 8.2.2011. Ex.A2 is the electricity consumption bill dated 21.12.2012 along with payment receipt. Since there is no dispute with regard to the possession of the plaintiff as a tenant in the plaint schedule property, Exs.A1 and A2 need not be appreciated. During cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that the defendant filed RCC 10/2013 against him for eviction on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and the claim of defendant in said RCC is that the defendant required the plaint schedule property for his personal occupation, that the plaintiff committed willful default in payment of rent from March, 2011, that he require the building for his personal occupation and has to reconstruct the building in which schedule property is situated since it became old. He also deposed that the defendant and his henchmen demanded him and other tenants of the building 5 or 6 times to vacate the building. P.W.1 further also deposed that in the month of December, 2012, three times the defendant and his men demanded him to vacate the property and in January, 2013 on 13 and 14th January, the defendant demanded him and other tenants to vacate the building and threatened them that he would demolish the building with bulldozer.

10.P.Ws.2 to 4 the co-tenants of P.W.1 in the building of defendant in which plaint schedule property is situated filed their chief affidavits stating that plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as a tenant but the defendant threatened the plaintiff and them to vacate the building as he require the same for his own purpose and threatened that he will demolish the building if they do not vacate the building. During cross examination, P.W.2 deposed that the defendant, his son-in-law, friend of defendant and four other persons came to plaint schedule property in January, 2013, police complaint was not given as the defendant and his men threatened to demolish the building with bulldozer. He further deposed that the defendant never requested them to vacate the premises. During cross examination, P.W.3 deposed that the defendant has been requesting all the tenants of the building to vacate the building since long time. He also deposed that the defendant, wife of defendant, son-in-law of defendant, friends of his son-in-law total 7 or 8 members came to the building and threatened them that they will demolish the shops in the building with bulldozer. During cross examination P.W.4 deposed that defendant has been requesting the tenants to vacate the building as he has to reconstruct the building for his personal occupation as the building became old.

11.In order to substantiate the case of defendant, the defendant himself is examined as D.W.1. D.W.1 filed his evidence affidavit by reiterating the contents of the written statement. During cross examination, D.W.1 deposed that he is residing in rented house. D.W.1 was suggested that he threatened the plaintiff with his henchmen by stating that he will throw the material from plaint 5 schedule property if the plaintiff did not vacate the plaint schedule shop. He denied the suggestion. Admittedly, the plaintiff is a statutory tenant of the plaint schedule property. As per the pleadings of defendant he never interfered into the business of plaintiff in the plaint schedule property but he requested the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule property so as to enable him to demolish the old building and construct new building for his residence and business. D.W.1 stated in his chief evidence he filed RCC 10/2013 for eviction of plaintiff on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. P.W.1 also admitted the same during cross examination. The contention of the defendant is that he is a law abiding citizen, he never forcibly tried to dispossess the plaintiff from plaint schedule property but he requested the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule property as he require the same for personal occupation and for conducting business in the property. So, from the evidence on record it is clear that the defendant has been demanding the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule property and he also took steps by filing RCC 10/2013 for eviction of plaintiff from plaint schedule property. If injunction is not granted in favour of plaintiff, there is every likelihood of dispossessing the plaintiff on the ground of personal occupation even before disposal of RCC 10/2013. Even if the suit is decreed, no loss or damage will be caused to the defendant since he filed RCC 10/2013 for eviction of the plaintiff. It is settled law once the plaintiff is a statutory tenant he cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. Hence, this court holds that plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his men from dispossessing the plaintiff from plaint schedule property without following due process of law. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE No.2:-

12.In view of findings given by this court in issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction to protect his possession till he is evicted by following due process of law. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court declined to award costs and both the parties shall bear their own costs.

13.In the result, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and supporters from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as tenant until he is evicted under due process of law. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of April, 2015.

Sd./- K. Prasanthi,

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff:For defendant:

PW1: Peddi SivaiahDW1: I. Adiseshaiah PW2: Challagundla Srinivas PW3: Nandigam Koteswara Rao PW4: Nandigam Radhakrishna Murthy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff:-

Ex.A110.1.2011Rent Receipts 2 in number dated 10.1.2011 & 8.2.2011 Ex.A221.12.2012 Electricity consumption bill along with payment receipt.

For defendant:- Nil

Ild./- K. Prasanthi,

II A.J.C.J.