1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO SECOND APPEAL No.761 of 2024 Appeal under Section 100 of CPC, questioning the Judgment and Decree dated 25-07-2024 passed in A.S.No.98/2024 on the file of the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 04-01-2019 passed in O.S.No.94/2015 on the file of the court of the 1®* Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. Between: Sankara Bhaskara Mohan Kumar, S/o.Rama Padmanabha Arya, Aged about 66 years, Occ: Business, Proprietor of Mohana Ayurvedic Stores, D.No.7-36-29, Main Road, Tenali, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Appellant/ Appellant/Defendant No.2 AND 1. Gudivada Maruthi Madhur, S/o.Late Jawahaeer, aged 43 years, Occ; Business, R/o.D.No.1-33-7, Main Road, Nazarpet, Tenali, Guntur District, AP. ...Respondent/ Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Tadiparthi Syam Prasad Mukarji, S/o.Gandhi, aged about 45 years, Occ; Business, R/o.Sri Balaji Medical Stores, H.No.7-36-46, Main Road, Tenali, Guntur District, AP. ...Respondent/ Respondent/Defendant No.1 lA NO: 2 OF 207d Petition under Order 41 Rule 5 of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i CPC praying that in the ID support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No. 197/2024 including delivery of schedule file of the court of the Additional Junior Civil District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above property in O.S.No.94/2015 on the Judge Court, Tenali, Guntur appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : Smt Thota Suneetha Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri N Sriram Counsel for Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Court made the following: Murthy APHC010561682024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) DAY OF FEBRUARY WM [3206] Q THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 761/2024 Between: Sankara Bhaskara Mohan Kumar AND Gudivada Maruthi Madhur and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.THOTASUNEETHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.N SRIRAM MURTHY The Court made the following Judgment: (perHon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT(S) The 1®' respondent, in this appeal, is the owner of the suit schedule property, consisting of land with old terraced house bearing old D.No.7-36-29 and new D.No.7-36-8 of Tenali Town. The property is said to have been acquired by the respondent, by way of a registered deed of sale, dated 02.01.2015, from one Sri Ghanta Samba Siva Rao, who had leased out the property to the 2^^^ respondent herein. It is the case of the 1®' respondent that he had purchased this 2 property along with adjoining properties for the purposes of getting better facing to the road for his business activities which had been carried out in the adjacent property which also belongs to him. 2. The 1®* respondent sought possession of the said property and filed O.S.No.94 of 2015, before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali. In the pliant, the 1®' respondent stated that the earlier owner Sri Ghanta Samba Sivarao had given the suit schedule property, on lease, respondent, on 01.04.1997, and the said lease had been renewed from time to time with the last renewal being from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2015. As the 2'''^ respondent, had stopped paying rent from January, 2015 onwards, and as he refused to vacate the premises after being informed by the 1®‘ respondent that he needed the shop for expanding his business, the suit came to be filed. It is also the respondent that prior to the filing of the suit, a notice to quit the premises had been issued by his advocate, on 09.03.2015, to the 2'^'^ respondent herein, seeking vacant possession on or before 15.04.2015 along with arrears of rent. The Appellant had also been impleaded as a defendant in the suit, as a sub tenant of the 2^^^ respondent. nd to the 2 even contention of the 1 The 2"^ respondent filed O.S.No.65 of 2015 seeking a permanent injunction against the 1®' respondent. Both suits were taken up together. The 2""' respondent, in his written statement in O.S.No.94 3. r? \ 3 of 2015 took the stand that the premises had been sub-leased in favour of the appellant herein and the same was accepted by Sri Ghanta Samba Siva Rao, the earlier owner of the property, who used to collect rents and issued receipts directly in favour of the appellant. The 2 respondent took the stand that there was no relationship of tenant and sub-tenant between the appellant and the 2^^ respondent and that the nd appellant was the direct tenant of Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao. The appellant also filed his written statement that the appellant was the direct tenant of the erstwhile owner and as such, there is no case for evicting the appellant from the property, by issuance of a notice, by the 1®' respondent. The trial Court, after a trial in both the suits, by a Judgment dated 04.01.2019, dismissed O.S.No.64 of 2015 and partly decreed O.S.No.94 of 2015 with a direction to the appellant and 2'^'^ respondent to vacate the plaint schedule property and handover the vacant possession of the same to the 1®‘ respondent therein within three months. The appellant and 2'^'^ respondent were also directed to pay damages to the 1®‘ respondent, for unauthorized use and occupation of the plaint schedule property from 01.04.2014 onwards. 4. The trial Court, after considering the depositions of the 5. ^ witnesses and the documents marked as evidence, had taken the view. St that the appellant was a sub-tenant of 2"^ respondent and that the 1 4 respondent was entitled to the possession by evicting the appellantand nd respondent from the property. The trial Court rejected the the 2 contentions of the appellant that the respondent could have expanded his business in other shops and that he did not have any need of this property. The trial Court took the view that such contentions are irrelevant, in a suit for eviction, under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the appellant 6. herein filed A.S.No.98 of 2024 against the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.94 of 2015 only. The appellate Court after considering the very same contentions raised before the trial Court had held in favour of the 1®* respondent and dismissed the appeal. It appears that an additional issue raised by the appellant, in the appellate Court was that the burden of proof of demonstrating the landlord-tenant relationship was on the 1®^ respondent. This plea was rejected by the appellate court. Further, the appellate Court also took the view that the burden of demonstrating that the appellant was a tenant of Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao was on the appellant himself and no steps were taken to discharge such a burden. On this basis, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal by a Judgment, dated 25.07.2024. 5 Si Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has approached this Court, by way of the present Second Appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that there was a direct association between Sri Ghanta Sambasiva 8. Rao, the erstwhile owner of the property and the appellant. The case of the appellant appears to be that he was direct tenant of Sri Ghanta Samba Sivarao and consequently, issuance of quit notice to the 2 respondent and subsequent legal proceedings cannot result in his eviction as he was the tenant and there was no atornment by Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao in favour of the respondent. nd Ex.B9 is the set of rent receipts, issued by Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao and marked by the appellant. These rental receipts 9. nd were issued by Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao, in the name of the 2 respondent and M/s. Mohan Ayurvedic Stores, which was the store being run by the appellant. This would go to show that the landlord- nd tenant relationship between Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao and the 2 respondent continued. The said rental receipts, do not make out a case of the tenancy being transferred in favour of the appellant. Similarly, a letter, dated 09.05.1997, which was marked as Ex.A4, said to be the permission given by Sri Ghanta Sambasiva Rao, to the 2'^'^ respondent, permitting transfer of tenancy of the plaint schedule property to the ^ . 6 such transfer. It is at best a letter appellant, does not show any permitting the appellant to use the premises under the lease of the 2 nd respondent. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any substantial question of law that requires to be answered by this Court and the findings of both trial Court and appellate Court also make it clear that the appellant can at best to be permitted as sub-tenant of 2 respondent and consequently, the order of eviction passed against the appellant and the 2"^^ respondent does not require any interference. 10. nd Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall 11. be no order as to costs. sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand As a closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, Guntur District, (with records if any) 2. The 1®‘Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali, Guntur District. 3. One CC to Smt Thota Suneetha, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri N Shram Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 6. Three CD Copies TK sree 1. ■ high court DATED;21/02/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE SA.No.761 of 2024 ANd ^ 12 M« Jl« 1 ^ . Current SncUon V!L£PspATC»;gSl>^ dismissing the second appeal WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO SECOND APPEAL No.761 of 2024 Between: Sankara Bhaskara Mohan Kumar, S/o.Rama Padmanabha Arya, Aged about 66 years, Occ; Business, Proprietor of Mohana Ayurvedic Stores, D.No.7-36-29, Main Road, Tenali, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Appellant/ Appellant/Defendant No.2 AND 1. Gudivada Maruthi Madhur, S/o.Late Jawahaeer, aged 43 years, Occ; Business, R/o.D.No.1-33-7, Main Road, Nazarpet, Tenali, Guntur District, AP. ...Respondent/ Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Tadiparthi Syam Prasad Mukarji, S/o.Gandhi, aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Sri Balaji Medical Stores, H.No.7-36-46, Main Road, Tenali, Guntur District, AP. ...Respondent/ Respondent/Defendant No.1 Appeal under Section 100 of CPC, questioning the Judgment and Decree dated 25-07-2024 passed in A.S.No.98/2024 on the file of the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 04-01-2019 passed in O.S.No.94/2015 on the file of the court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgement and Decree of the Trial Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Smt Thota Suneetha, Advocate for the Appellant, Sri N Shram Murthy, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2, This Court doth judgment and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; and 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, Guntur District. 2. The 1®* Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali, Guntur District. 3. Three CD Copies TK sree HIGH COURT DATED:21/02/2025 DECREE SA.No.761 of 2024 ANOHi ,2Mwa» I % Cun«ttS“*j“S ^ \i. P^srKtC<^ DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS