( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is by defendants-2 and 3 before the trial Court in the suit filed by R-1 plaintiff. The petitioners are aggrieved by the application filed by them under Order 7, Rule 11 of the C. P. C. seeking rejection of the plaint being dismissed by the trial Court.

( 2 ) THE facts briefly stated are that R-1 plaintiff filed the suit in question by contending that he was a tenant under the first defendant in respect of the shop premises bearing old No. 44 and new No. 267, Old Tharagupete, Bangalore, on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- and advance of Rs. 2,10,000/-and was carrying on business in agricultural produce market commodities. When the plaintiff sought repairs to be effected to the shop premises, the first defendant owner refused and this led the plaintiff to file H. R. C. Petition before the Small Cause Court in h. R. C. No. 10255/1990 and following the passing of the New Rent Act of 1999, the matter stood transferred to the Rent Controller for adjudication and later on, the said petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. However, as the shop premises was in a bad condition, the plaintiff had to keep it under lock and key. Taking advantage of the said position, the first defendant sold the shop premises along with other shop premises to defendants-2 and 3 (who are the petitioners herein) under a registered sale deed dated 28-12-2005. It is the plaint allegation that the said defendants-2 and 3 demolished the shop building during the second week of February 2006 and even the police did not take any action against the said defendants and even the first defendant refused to do the repair work. Citing all these reasons, the plaintiff sought the following reliefs as could be seen from the prayer column of the plaint:

"wherefore, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that demolition of the suit schedule property by the defendants during the 2nd week of February 2006 is illegal and unauthorized; and (ii) further direct the defendants to restore possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff after reconstruction the same; and (iii) grant any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant to the plaintiff in the interest of justice. "

( 3 ) THE first defendant filed his written statement by contending that the plaintiff vacated the premises in question in the year 1999 but, kept it under lock and key and in november 2005, the plaintiff approached the first defendant for compensation by way of cash and the first defendant paid the same to the plaintiff in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter, the first defendant sold the shop premises to defendants-2 and 3 and, subsequent to the said event, the said defendants-2 and 3 demolished the old structure for putting up a shop premises of their own. The petitioners herein, on their part, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C. P. C. seeking rejection of the plaintiff on the ground that the suit itself was not maintainable and the prayer sought by the plaintiff cannot be fulfilled. Furthermore, the plaintiff had no subsisting right to remain in possession of the premises in question as the tenancy had come to an end. The further prayer for directing the defendants to restore possession of the suit property to the plaintiff after reconstructing the same also cannot be granted.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties on the application filed by the petitioners herein rejected the said application filed by the petitioners by holding that if the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit relief, the Court can mould the relief and, therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected unless it is shown that there is any specific bar under law for entertaining the suit itself. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned Judge of the trial Court also placed reliance on several decisions cited before him.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed.

( 6 ) THE submission of the le