Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO
Acme Tiles and Building Products - Appellant
Versus
B.Sudershan - Respondent
Decided On : 09-17-93
INJUNCTION - POSSESSION - TENANCY - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 6 - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION - TENANT IN POSSESSION OF SUIT PROPERTY - LANDLORD OBTAINING DECREE AGAINST TENANT AND EXECUTING SALE DEED THROUGH COURT - TENANT NOT EVICTED - TENANT CONTINUING TO PAY RENT - TENANT ENTITLED TO POSSESSION - LANDLORD NOT ENTITLED TO DISTURB TENANT'S POSSESSION WITHOUT RECOURSE TO LAW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-plaintiff, a proprietary concern carrying on its business in the manufacture and sale of mosaic tiles, was a tenant in respect of a portion of the suit premises. The respondents-defendants purchased the suit property from the landlords and obtained a decree against the landlords. Pursuant to the decree, a sale deed was executed in their favour. The respondents-defendants wanted to evict the petitioner-plaintiff and obtained permission for construction of flats behind the back of the petitioner-plaintiff. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction and filed a petition for interim injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner-plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit and that the respondents-defendants had not obtained possession of the property. The Court also found that the petitioner-plaintiff was not a trespasser and that he was paying rent regularly. The Court held that the respondents-defendants were not entitled to disturb the petitioner-plaintiff's possession without taking recourse to law.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner-plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit? 2. Whether the respondents-defendants had obtained possession of the property? 3. Whether the petitioner-plaintiff was a trespasser? 4. Whether the respondents-defendants were entitled to disturb the petitioner-plaintiff's possession without taking recourse to law?
Ratio Decidendi: A person in possession of immovable property to the knowledge of the landlord at the time when he occupied the said land, cannot be evicted otherwise than in due course of law even though the respondents-defendants have obtained a sale deed through a competent Court.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the lower Court, and restored the order of the trial Court in so far as the portion marked as 11,12 and 13. The Court also directed the lower Court to ascertain the damage caused to the petitioner-plaintiff and restore the same position which was prevailing prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 21-7-1993 at the cost and expenditure of the respondents-defendants within three months from the date of receipt of the file after transfer.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed at the instance of the petitioner-plaintiff against the order passed in I. A. No. 1410 of 1992 in O. S. No. 6258 of 1991 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
( 2 ) THE petitioner-plaintiff filed O. S. No. 6258 of 1991 on the file of the IX assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents- defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Along with the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a petition i. A. No. 1131 of 1991 under Order 39, Rule 1, CPC praying for an interim injunction.
( 3 ) ON an appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties and also the commissioner s report, the trial Court partly allowed i. A. No. 1131 of 1991 with the following observations: (A) The respondents 1 to 4 and their men are restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner-plaintiff over the open land marked as 11,12 and 13 i. e. ,to the extent of 13 from the wall and also the leased out constructed premises of the petitioner-plaintiff without due process of law:- (B) The petitioner-plaintiff can use the open land which is situate towards eastern side of the main gate for all its business purposes without causing inconvenience to the respondents-defendants: (C) The respondents 1 to 4 defendants 1 to 4 are permitted to demolish their constructed old premises in careful manner without causing any type of damage to the leased out, constructed premises of the petitioner- plaintiff which is abutting to the constructed leased out premises of the respondents-defendants; (D) That Sri P. Balaram Reddy, Advocate-cum-Commissioner who is appointed to supervise the demolition of constructed premises of respondents-defendants and the said Commissioner is hereby directed to intimate the date and time of execution of the demolition work of both portions. We shall take all necessary measures to see that respondents 1 to 4-defendants 1 to 4 can demolish their premises in a careful manner without causing any damage to the constructed premises of the petitioner-plaintiff. In case, if any damage occurs, the respondents 1 to 4-defendants 1 to 4 shall undertake the demolition work. His fee is fixed at Rs. 500/- to be payable by each party.
( 4 ) HAVING been aggrieved by the above said order passed by the learned IX assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in so far as it went against each of them, both the parties preferred appeals in the Court of the Additional Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, viz. , the petitioner-plaintiff preferred cma No. 11 of 1992 while the respondents-defendants preferred CMA No. 27 of 1992. After hearing both parties, the learned Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad disposed of both the appeals by his common judgment dated 25-9-1992 by making the following order: (1) There shall be an injunction against the respondents-defendants from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the the property leased out to the petitioner-plaintiff as per Exs. A-26 and a-27; (2) There shall be an injunction against the respondents-defendants restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment by the petitioner-plaintiff of the open land towards the East of the main gate for the limited purpose of having free ingress and egress to it and its vehicles to the demised premises; (3) The respondents-defendants are hereby restrained from effecting demolition of the built up area adjoining the built up area leased out to the petitioner-plaintiff till further directions by the trial Court in terms of the observations made in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment in regard to the appointment of a commissioner with engineering knowledge etc. , (4) The appeals are dismissed in all others respects.
( 5 ) IT appears that after the dispos
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
