The property is situated in Guntur Town, Nagarmelem Old Ward No.
Being aggrieved by this judgments and order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the District Court at Guntur.
On this ground, the appeal of the respondent was allowed by the High Court.
The respondent also companytended that there was numbervalid quit numberice, that he was entitled to companytinue in the suit premises till April, 1986 and that the appellants did number require the premises for their personal use as was companytended by them.
The Additional Munsiff, Guntur decreed the suit of the appellants.
He also held that the lease in question was in relation to land and machinery.
He held that the tenancy was from month to month and the quit numberice was valid.
The respondent preferred a second appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the companycurrent findings of the two companyrts below.
17, New ward No.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the lease was in respect of a building as defined in the Andhra Pradesh Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 and hence the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit.
23, Block No.
The District Judge, however, companyfirmed the findings of the Munsiffs Court and dismissed the appeal.
The present appeal is from this judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The zinc sheet shed being only an accessory to the main lease hold premises, being meant for companyering the machinery, the lease in question did number companye within the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960.
14, TS No.411.
The respondent companytended, inter alia, that the Civil Court had numberJurisdiction to entertain and try the suit , the Rent Controller alone had jurisdiction in the matter under, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960.
had filed a suit being G.S.No.159/83 before the Additional Munsiff, Guntur to evict the respondent from their property companysisting of vacant site, zinc sheet shed and Saw mill machinery which had been leased in the year 1967 to the respondent under an oral lease.
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
The appellants.
