The plaintiff is the tenant of one room in the property owned by the first defendant. He also constructed Venkata Ramana Lodge. Alleging that the first defendant informed defendant Nos.2 and 3 that he would evict the plaintiff, he filed a suit. The defendants opposed the suit contending that there is no landlord and tenant relationship; the plaintiff is a trespasser and not paying any rent and that the second defendant filed R.C.C.No.2 of 1993 before the Rent Controller.=On considering the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit and held that plaintiff failed to prove that he is a tenant. The appellate Court, however, reversed the same holding that when there is an admission made by D.W.1 about the relationship, plaintiff cannot be evicted without due process of law.=The injunction granted in favour of the tenant is only to the extent of preventing the landlord from evicting the tenant highhandedly. This does not preclude him to approach the appropriate Forum like the Rent Controller and seek eviction.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

SECOND APPEAL No.1397 of 2011

Dated:23.12.2011

Between:

D.V.S.Satyanarayana Rao.

…Appellant

and

Marneedu Venkata Ramana.

…Respondent

 
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

SECOND APPEAL No.1397 of 2011

JUDGMENT:

          This Second Appeal by the second defendant in O.S.No.112 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, is against the reversing judgment dated 30.03.2002 in A.S.No.18 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.

          The plaintiff is the tenant of one room in the property owned by the first defendant.  He also constructed Venkata Ramana Lodge.   Alleging that the first defendant informed defendant Nos.2 and 3 that he would evict the plaintiff, he filed a suit.  The defendants opposed the suit contending that there is no landlord and tenant relationship; the plaintiff is a trespasser and not paying any rent and that the second defendant filed R.C.C.No.2 of 1993 before the Rent Controller.

          The trial Court framed three issues.   Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1.  No documentary evidence was let in.  On considering the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit and held that plaintiff failed to prove that he is a tenant.  The appellate Court, however, reversed the same holding that when there is an admission made by D.W.1 about the relationship, plaintiff cannot be evicted without due process of law.

          In this appeal the Counsel for the appellant submits that granting of permanent injunction in favour of the tenant would deny the right of the landlord to evict the tenant.  The submission cannot be accepted.  The injunction granted in favour of the tenant is only to the extent of preventing the landlord from evicting the tenant highhandedly.  This does not preclude him to approach the appropriate Forum like the Rent Controller and seek eviction.

          The Second Appeal is devoid of any merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

_______________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

23.12.2011

vs