- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The respondent No.1 filed a suit, which was registered as O.S. No.73/1996 (old No.617/1993) for eviction of respondent No.2, Ramose Chandra Goutham. The same was decreed by II Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam vide judgment dated 24.9.1999 on the ground that respondent No.2 had committed default in payment of rent. During the pendency of that suit, the appellant, which is a partnership firm consisting of the wife and son of respondent No.2 filed a suit (O.S. No 1835/1997) for declaration that the firm is statutory tenant of the suit premises and for grant of perpetual injunction restraining respondent No.1 herein from forcibly evicting it. By judgment dated 3.5.2000, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam dismissed the suit. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit by declaring the firm to be the statutory tenant of respondent No.1. The Lower Appellate Court also granted permanent injunction restraining respondent No.1 from evicting the appellant. Second Appeal No.876/2003 preferred by respondent No.1 against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court was dismissed by the High Court on 5.9.2003.
(3.) IN the meanwhile the appellant - firm applied for and was granted leave to appeal against judgment and decree dated 24.9.1999 passed in O.S. No.73/1996. The appeal was registered as A.S. No.642/2000. During the course of hearing, attention of the High Court was drawn to judgments passed in O.S. No.1835/1997, A.S. No.128/2000 and S.A. No.876/2003 and it was submitted that the declaration granted by the Lower Appellate Court, which was confirmed by the High Court that appellant is the statutory tenant of the premises in question is binding on the parties and, therefore, the decree of eviction is liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge referred to the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, but declared that the same are inadmissible because neither the plaintiff nor the defendant were parties to the proceedings.;