Common Order:

1. Since all these proceedings are interconnected, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to these proceedings would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in CRP No.633 of 2004.

3. In the suit filed by the first respondent seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the revision petitioner from interfering with his possession over the plaint schedule property he filed two petitions (i) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking an injunction during the pendency of the suit restraining the revision petitioners and their agents and servants or any persons claiming through them, from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property i.e. land measuring 1,012.12 sq.yards in S.No.43 at Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad and (ii) under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to deposit half share of the revision petitioner in the arrears of rent and future rent in respect of the suit property, alleging that the revision petitioners who are the owners of the vacant site of 1,012.12 sq. yards in S.No.43 at Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad wanted to construct a building complex therein but as the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, earmarked that property as a park they could not obtain permission for construction of a building therein, and so they approached it for construction of a multi storied complex in that site on an understanding that that site would be leased to it for 15 years on an annual rent of Rs.90,000/- from 09-08-1996 to 08-09-1991 and at Rs.1,00,000/- p.a. from 09-09-1991 to 08-09-1996 and at Rs.1,29,600/- p.a. from 09-09-1996 to 08-09-2001 and that after 15 years lease period half share of the constructed building would go to it and the remaining half share would go to the revision petitioners and though it paid the rents till 08-09-2001, revision petitioners, got issued a legal notice on 25.05.2000 claiming arrears of rent and so it sent the rents through cheques and pay orders under reply dated 13-06-2000 and that the revision petitioners, after receiving the reply sent a notice on 05.09.2001 demanding vacation of their half share portion of the building, for which it sent a reply on 28-09-2001 and as there was a clear understanding between it and the revision petitioners that after expiry of the 15 years lease period, revision petitioners have to execute and register a sale deed in respect of its half share in the premises constructed by it at a huge cost and as the revision petitioners, by relying on a nominal document executed by it, which was never acted upon, are falsely claiming the entire building constructed by it as theirs have issued a legal notice dated 01-04-2002 to its tenants with false allegations claiming rents from them, though they have no privity of contract with those tenants inducted by it, revision petitioners may be restrained by an injunction from interfering with its possession over the suit property and it may be permitted it to deposit the half of arrears of rent and the future rents payable to the revision petitioners into Court.

4. The case of the revision petitioners, in brief, is that Smt. Aparna and Smt. Deepthi daughters of the proprietrix of first respondent, are not the tenants of the suit premises and that first respondent set up a false tenancy in their favour to create future litigation and that the suit property in fact is in the occupation of only two tenants and that there was no understanding between the parties to give 50% of the building to be constructed by it in the site leased out to the first respondent, and that there was no agreement to register a sale deed in respect of 50% of the building in favour of the first respondent and that all the terms and conditions agreed between the parties were reduced into writing on 09.09.1986, and except that agreement there are no other agreements or understandings between the parties and that the first respondent cons