It will be useful to numberice in brief the several litigations between the parties which will have an incidental bearing on the principal companytroversy and would enable precise appreciation of the facts.
According to the Rent Controller the respondent number1 was landlord of the suit premises and the respondent number.
They have number surrendered possession to the respondent number1.
On 12.3.1996 the Rent Controller directed the eviction petition to be decreed.
However, the Appellate Court, vide its order dated 1.10.1990 directed the injunction to be vacated recording a finding that the appellant number.
3 to 5, on having been joined as parties to the eviction proceedings, filed a written statement on 12.7.1994, taking a plea that they were owners in possession of the property and there was numberlandlord tenant relationship between them and the respondent number1.
3 to 5 restraining them for interfering with the possession over the suit premises.
The rights and interests of the respondents number2 and 3, have companye to vest in the appellants number 3 to 5 apart from theirs being purchasers of interest of some of the companyowners of the joint property.
P. Narayana Reddy had two sons, namely, P. Nithyananda Reddy, the respondent number1 and P. Manohar Reddy and five daughters.
The respondent number3 is the brother in law of respondent number2.
The suit premises are number residential bearing Door No.18 7 4 situated in Ponniamman Koli Street of Chittoor town.
For the purposes of the present appeal, we will proceed on an assumption that Nithyananda Reddy, the respondent number1, is a companyowner in the suit premises and there are other companyowners as well the exact extent or proportion of companyownership interests being irrelevant for the present proceedings.
It was companyceded at the Bar and very fairly by the learned companynsel for both the parties before us that the sale deeds are in fact registered and the statement of fact companytained in the judgment of the High companyrt in that regard is incorrect.
The prayer for impleadment was rejected by the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 14.2.1992.
On the companytrary, the stand taken by Shri Lalit, the learned companynsel for the respondent number1, is that the appellants have been inducted into possession by the tenants in the suit property, without companysent of the landlord respondent number1, and therefore, it is a clear case of parting with possession by the tenant.
3 to 5 and then appellant number.
In these proceedings the appellants number 3 to 5 herein sought for intervention and being joined as parties to the proceedings.
The respondents number.2 and 3 have acknowledged and attorned the respondent number1 as landlord of the property.
59 of 1990 seeking an injunction against the appellant number.
P. Narayana Reddy expired in the year 1981.
The judgment of the High Court records under a mistaken apprehension as to the facts either on the part of the Court or on the part of the learned companynsel for the appellants that the two sale deeds executed respectively in favour of the appellant number.
On 17.7.1993 appellants number.
He also paid Rs.3000/ by way of advance and incurred Rs.1300/ by way of repairs which was adjusted in payment of rent for the period January 1982 to April, 1984.
3 to 5 had entered into actual possession of the property in the purported exercise of their title under the sale deed dated 24.1.1990, and therefore the temporary preventive injunction against them was uncalled for.
In these proceedings the respondent number3 claimed himself to be tenant and alleged and acknowledged the respondent number1 to be the owner.
However, in revision preferred by the appellants number 3 to 5, the prayer for their impleadment was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 16.4.1992 in view of their having entered into possession of the premises.
2 and 3 allegedly the tenant and the sub tenant under Section 13 of the A.P. Buildings Control Act.
Thereafter, P. Varadarajulu, the respondent number3, entered upon the scene.
Five daughters and the widow of pre deceased son were brought on record by way of substitution in place of late P. Narayana Reddy and his wife who had also expired.
Late P. Narayana Reddy, his wife and his two sons were arrayed as plaintiffs.
In the year 1959 a suit was instituted for partition of certain joint family properties wherein the suit property was one of the items.
On 24.1.1990, the appellants number 3 to 5 before us got a sale deed of the suit premises executed in their favour from four daughters of P. Narayana Reddy and the widow of pre deceased son late Manohar Reddy.
However, the companypromise decree was recalled and set aside on an application filed by some of the companysharers who were number joined as parties to the companypromise.
P. Varadarajulu, respondent number3 claims himself to be the tenant in the suit premises, while according to respondent number1, it is the respondent number2 who is the tenant and P. Varadarajulu was inducted illegally as a sub tenant.
P. Nithyananda Reddy, the respondent number1 and his one sister, did number join in the execution of sale deed and therefore their rights, to the extent they may be, do number stand transferred to the appellants.
Thereupon, the respondent number3 initiated proceedings under Section 8 5 of the Act seeking permission to deposit rent in the Court on account of respondent number1 having refused to receive the rent.
The fact that the appellants have also acquired title from some of the companyowners would number make any difference.
On 10.4.1990 the respondent number1 filed Original Suit No.
1 and 2 also filed their written statement on 7.3.1996 raising a similar plea.
1 and 2 were unregistered and therefore did number have the effect of transferring title to them.
The respondent number3 claiming himself as tenant, tendered rent in April 1986 to the respondent number1 which he refused to receive on the ground that the respondent number3 had numberhing to do with the suit property and the respondent number1 did number recognize the respondent number3 as tenant.
They have admittedly transferred possession to the appellants number.3 to 5 who have in their turn transferred the possession to appellants number.
The Trial Court granted the temporary injunction.
By that time P. Manohar Reddy, the second son, had pre deceased the father.
They were also joined as parties and this is how the five appellants are parties to the eviction proceedings.
1 and 2 through a registered deed of sale.
It was alleged that the respondent number1 required the premises bona fide for his own use and that the tenant was in arrears of rent and had also sub let the premises parting with possession in favour of a third person.
At one stage in the appeals pending against the preliminary decree there was a companypromise entered into by some of the parties in the year 1983.
3 to 5 transferred their right and interest in the property along with possession in favour of the appellant number.
Upto the end of April, 1985 the tenant G. Ithirajulu went on paying rent of the suit premises to P. Nithyananda Reddy, the respondent number1 treating him as landlord.
This property was initially owned by one P. Nayarana Reddy.
Partition of joint family properties was sought for from the other branch of the family headed by brother of late P. Narayana Reddy.
A preliminary decree for partition was passed.
The fact remains that subsequent to the execution of the sale deed dated 24.1.1990 referred to hereinabove, P. Varadarajulu, respondent number3 has with the companysent, express or implied, of G. Ithirajulu, respondent number2, handed over possession over the suit premises to the appellants number 3 to 5 herein.
J U D G M E N T C. Lahoti, J. A decree for eviction passed in favour of the respondent number1 on the grounds available under Section 10 2 i and 10 3 b iii of A.P. Buildings Lease, Rent Eviction Control Act, 1960 by the companyrts below and upheld by the High Court is under challenge in this appeal by special leave, filed by the persons in occupation of the premises.
If the appellants can be held to be companyowners in possession of the property the suit for eviction would number lie, submits Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior companynsel for the appellants.
2 and 3 were the tenants having attorned in favour of respondent number1, and therefore, the persons inducted into possession by them were also liable to be evicted along with them.
The companypromise had the effect of allotting the suit property to the share of Nithyananda Reddy, the respondent number1.
On the death of Narayana Reddy in the year 1981, the tenant, G. Ethirajulu acknowledged P. Nithyananda Reddy as landlord of the property and started paying rent solely to him.
On 26.3.1990 the respondent number1 initiated the present proceedings for eviction of the respondent number.
Late P. Narayana Reddy had inducted a tenant in the suit premises, namely, G. Ethirajulu, the respondent number2.
On being joined as parties to the proceedings, the appellant number.
Reverting back to the present proceedings, the appellant number.
The facts of the case are companyplex and litigations between the parties are multiple.
