M. Seetharama Murti, J. - (1.) Both these first appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 20.02.2006 in O.S. No. 10 of 1999 and in O.S. No. 57 of 2000 of the learned V Additional District Judge (Judge, Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajahmundry. However, the two decrees which were separately drawn up in the two suits bear the date of the day on which the common judgment was pronounced. Hence, both these appeals arising out of the said decrees and common judgment were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 57 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit for eviction', for brevity) are admittedly the tenants of the property, which is more fully described in the schedules annexed to both the suits. The 1st defendant in the above said suit is a company represented by its' Managing Director -Bikkina Sarojini; and the 2nd defendant, Bikkina Rama Manohar, is the husband of the said Sarojini. One late Bathula Satyanarayana Murthy was the owner of the said schedule property and also the landlord. The said suit was filed by the purchasers of the property from the said original owner -Bathula Satyanarayana Murthy, for eviction of the tenants/defendants 1 and 2 and for recovery of vacant possession of the property besides damages/future damages towards arrears of rent and use and occupation etcetera. The other suit O.S. No. 10 of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit for specific performance', for brevity) was filed by the above said Bikkina Sarojini and her husband Bikkina Rama Manohar against the legal representatives of the said Bathula Satyanarayana Murthy and the two purchasers of the property from him for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale said to have been entered into by them with late Bathula Satyanarayana Murthy, who is admittedly, the landlord -cum -original owner of the property. Both the suits were consolidated, and during the course of joint trial, common evidence was recorded in the suit for specific performance. On merits, the trial Court decreed the suit for eviction and dismissed the suit for specific performance. Therefore, in both the suits, one set of parties i.e., Bikkina Sarojini and Bikkina Rama Manohar were unsuccessful. It is necessary to reiterate that Bikkina Sarojini is the Managing Partner of the 1st defendant company in the suit for eviction. Hence, the said unsuccessful parties preferred these two first appeals.
(3.) Thus, the suit for eviction against the tenants in the property was filed by the purchasers from the original owner -cum -landlord. Whereas, the suit for specific performance was filed by one of the tenants and the Managing Partner of the other tenant -company. The legal representatives of the original owner i.e., the defendants 1 to 5 had remained ex parte in the suit for specific performance. Hence, the two contesting parties are the tenants/agreement holders and the purchasers of the property from the original landlord. Therefore, for convenience and clarity, the unsuccessful parties in the two suits before the trial court i.e., the appellants in both these appeals shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the tenants/agreement holders' and the successful parties i.e., the respondents 1 to 5 in AS 343 of 2006 shall be referred to as 'L.Rs of the original owner' and the respondents 6 and 7 as 'the purchasers/landlords'.;