M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE revision petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that inspite of anorder of injunction granted in his favour by the Civil Court in I. A No. 855/ 89 on 13-4-89 in O. S. 613/89 and in spite of the service of the said order on the 1st respondent on 15-4-89 restraining the latter from evicting the revision petitioner in an eviction petition in R. C. No. 79/83 from the subject matter of the suit, the 1st respondent, after filing a written statement and filing an application to advance the LA. in O. S. No. 613/89 suddenly proceeded with execution of the eviction order obtained by him in the other proceeding viz. , Rent Control proceedings in R. C. No. 79/83 against one devasabayam and forcibly evicted the petitioner on the mid-night of 3-7-89.

( 2 ) THE position is like this CD facts : One Devasahayam was theowner of the property and the revision petitioner claims to be a purchaser from him under an agreement of sale dated 21-5-77 for Rs. 23,000/ -. The property is described with door No. as 5-9-172/1 Chapal Road, Hyderabad. The petitioner claims to have paid bulk of the consideration. The said Devasahayam sold property bearing Door No. 5-9-172, again in favour of the 1st respondent herein under a registered sale deed dated 1-3-78 for an alleged consideration of Rs. 5,000/ -. On the basis that the vendor Devasahayam became a tenant under him, the I st respondent filed R. C. No. 79/83 in the court of the Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction. The eviction proceedings were no doubt contested, but ended in favour of the 1st respondent before the Rent Controller and on appeal and on further revision. The 1st respondent filed an execution petition against the said Devasahayam in 1985 and at that stage, the revisio n petitioner filed E. A. 84/85 stating that he had purchased the same property under an ageement of sale dated 21-5-77 and was in possession. This was contested by the 1st respondent.

( 3 ) AS things stood thus, the revision petitioner filed O. S. No. 1451/85 before the IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and in that suit the vendor Devasahayam remained ex parte. The 1st respondent herein, who states that he obtained a sale deed dated 1-3-78 and who had by that time filed the rent control eviction petition R. C. No. 79/83, was not impleaded in this suit by the petitioner. This suit O. S. No. 1451/85 was for specific performance of the alleged agreement dated 21-5-77. The suit was decreed ex parte on 17-3-86 and the petitioner obtained a sale deed through Court on 1-8-1987. As things stood thus, E. A. No. 84/85 filed by the petitioner in e. P. in R. C. No. 79/83 was dismissed on 29-3-89 and the petitioner filed c. R. P. No. 1135/89. When the matter came up before the learned Judge, he, after initially granting an order of maintainance of status-quo, rejected the petitioner s revision holding that it is open to the petitioner to establish his title in a proceeding to which the 1st respondent is also a party.

( 4 ) ON that basis, the petitioner then filed O. S No. 613/89 on 13-4-89for declaration of title and for injunction impleading the 1st respondent as well as the legal representatives of Devasahayam as defendants. In this suit, the petitioner obtained temporary injunction in I. A. No. 855/89 on 13-4-89 restraining the 1st respondent from evicting the petitioner from the premises described as 5-9-172 in R. C. 79/83. The Civil Court granted a temporary injunction on 13-4-89 and the same was served on 1st respondent on 15-4-89. The 1st respondent filed a written state ment in the suit and a counter I. A. No. 855/89 and also moved another I. A. , on 22-6-89 for advancement of LA. 855/89 and vacating the interim injunction. That was ordered and the case stood advanced to 27-6-89. It was then adjourned to 29-6-89 and thereafter before the matter could be taken up, the 1st respondent changed his mind and in spite of the order of injunction against him, which was in force, moved the Rent Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document