This appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C challenging the order dt.03.06.2013 in I.A.No.217 of 2012 in O.S.No.2182 of 2012 of the IV Senior Civil Judge’s Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the above suit. He filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering or dispossessing it from the plaint schedule property without following due process of law. Admittedly, the said suit was filed on 28.12.2012.

3. The case of the appellant is that he is a tenant in the suit schedule property owned by the respondent; that the tenancy commenced on 10.03.2010 and lease agreement dt.25.02.2010 was entered into between the parties; that it entered into possession of the property and was doing business therein under the name and style of M/s.Hydrogen Fuel Systems; subsequently, the lease was further extended for a period of 3 years under a deed dt.01.04.2011; that the respondent was pressurising the appellant to vacate the property and threatening the appellant that she would forcibly occupy the property; and therefore, in view of the threat of the respondent and her husband, it has filed the present suit.

4. Along with the suit, the appellant also filed I.A.No.217 of 2012 seeking temporary injunction against the respondent and her men or persons claiming through her from interfering or obstructing or dispossessing the appellant from the plaint schedule property without following due process of law. The appellant reiterated the plaint allegations in this application also.

5. On 07.03.2013, an exparteinjunction order was granted in favour of the appellant.

6. The respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the plaint averments and contended that the lease was granted not to the appellant but to an entity by name M/s. Global Hydrogen Systems and Companies; that the appellant has no locus to file the suit; that the suit is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party one Syed Hashmi, who had also signed the lease agreement along with Mohd. Musthaq Ahmed, who represents the appellant; that the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands; that Mohd. Musthaq Ahmed representing M/s. Global Hydrogen Systems and Companies, approached the respondent in November, 2012 and stated that he is not in a position to carry on business in the plaint schedule property and would vacate the premises; that he also promised to pay the outstanding amount to the respondent but he vacated the premises on 31.12.2012; that subsequently, the respondent entered into a lease w.e.f. 01.02.2013 in favour of M/s.Paramount Communications and from 01.01.2013, the tenant M/s.Global Hydrogen Systems and Companies or its representatives Mohd. Musthaq Ahmed and Syed Hashmi were not in possession of the plaint schedule property as lessee. She also contended that even though the suit was filed on 28.12.2012, appellant did not seek injunction and obtained an exparteinjunction order till 07.03.2013 by which date the appellant was not in possession of the property and M/s. Paramount communications was in possession thereof; that she also filed a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Punjagutta Police Station on 23.02.2013 complaining about the illegal acts of Mohd. Musthaq Ahmed; that on 10.03.2013, the said person again threatened the newly inducted tenant and therefore, the application should be rejected.

7. In the Court below, the appellant marked Exs.P.1 to P.24 and the respondent marked Exs.R.1 to R.11.

8. By order dt.03.06.2013, the Court below dismissed the I.A.No.217 of 2012. It held that the respondent had strongly disputed the possession of the appellant in the plaint schedule property and the burden lies on the appellant to show its possession w.e.f. 31.12.2012 as the tenancy prior thereto was not disputed; that such a strong plea taken by the respondent has to be rebutted by the appellant and it should prove that it is continuing in possession of the p