THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.858 of 2025

ORDER

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. M.Ramalingeswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. R.Anurag, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14.02.2025, in I.A.No.370 of 2024 in O.S.No.267 of 2022, passed by the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

3. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to with their rank before the Trial Court.

4. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has allowed the I.A.No.370 of 2024 filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking for restoration of the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule property from where he allegedly was dispossessed on

21.09.2024.

5. The brief facts of the case, are that, the plaintiff had filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants and their men, agents, servants, henchmen and any other persons or representatives claiming through or under the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from the suit schedule property without following the due process of law. In the plaint, the plaintiff categorically mentioned of him having taken the suit schedule premises i.e. plot Nos.437 and 438, together measuring 1000 sq. yards on lease. According to the plaintiff, he wanted the defendants to carry out some work so that he can run his business of an automobile workshop at the said premises. According to the plaintiff, the defendants permitted him to carry out necessary development in the said plots and a lease deed was executed for a monthly rent of Rs.1,00,000/- initially for a period of one year and the said lease deed also was executed with an understanding that it shall be for a minimum of five years with an annual increase on the lease rent at the rate of 7.5% every year and Rs.5,00,000/- was paid towards security deposit. Further, the plaintiff had spent more than Rs.78,00,000/- for the development of the premises with necessary repairs, rectification and refurbishing.

6. Apart from the aforesaid development expenses that the plaintiff had incurred, he had also put in huge amount of money towards erection of the structure required for operating his automobile workshop and has been paying regular rent to the defendants without any default. According to the plaintiff, he was paying rent of Rs.1,33,547/- per month and, in addition, he was also bearing the water and electricity bills. However, since the value of the property suddenly short up considerably, the defendants have been pressurizing the plaintiff to vacate the premises and started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.

7. It was when there was constant interference from the defendants that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking for perpetual injunction on 13.04.2022. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed I.A.No.41 of 2022 seeking for an interim injunction against the defendants. The Trial Court after hearing the parties on I.A.No.41 of 2022, granted an interim protection so far as directing the parties to maintain status quo and the order of status quo was from time to time extended. Meanwhile, the defendants in connivance with certain anti-social elements and also with assistance of senior level police official had pressurized the plaintiff on various dates to vacate the premises. The plaintiff had also filed a First Information Report (FIR) at the Madhapur Police Station vide F.I.R.No.1234 of 2024, dated 20.09.2024. In spite of lodging of the FIR, the defendants are alleged to have been successful in dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property on 22.09.2024. It was also alleged that o