M. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY Vs. SRI. PRABHATH KAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HIS appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order passed on IA.I dated 10.7.2000 in OS No. 1570 of 2000. The facts relating to this case are as under;

(2.) APPELLANT claims to be a tenant in his individual capacity of the premises bearing No. 394, CEDAR WINGS, II Cross, III Block, Koramangala, Bangalore. Respondent and his father late Omprakash Gupta, are the joint owners of the said premises. The Appellant and the Respondent entered into an agreement to sell dated 28.1.1988. Appellant paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - in terms of the agreement. The balance sale consideration was to be paid subject to the fulfilment of other conditions of the agreement. It is further averred that the schedule property had already been let out in favour of a company Shetty Leasing India Limited, in terms of a lease agreement dated 1.6.1984. Appellant is the Managing Director of the said company. The Respondent herein filed a petition under the Karnataka Rent Control Act seeking for eviction of the schedule property on various grounds. The Respondent (Petitioner in HRC Case) made an application under Section 29 of the Act. The said application was allowed. The said order was not complied with by the Company. Thereafter another application was filed under Section 29(4) of the Act by the Respondent. The said application was allowed by the HRC Court by an order dated 27.3.1998. Against which the Company filed House Rent Revision Petition No. 984 of 1998. The matter was argued and thereafter the House Rent Revision Petition No. 984 of 1998 was disposed of in view of an undertaking given by the Company to vacate and hand over the premises within two years. The company was represented by the Appellant before this Court and before the HRC Court. The Company represented by the Appellant filed an affidavit in terms of the order of the High Court in House Rent Revision Petition No. 984 of 1998. The said affidavit was not acceptable to the Respondent. It opposed it. Later an affidavit was filed by the company through the Appellant to vacate and hand over the possession.

(3.) THE Appellant after all these proceedings filed a suit in OS No. 15708 of 2000 and sought for a bare injunction restraining the present Respondent or any person claiming through them from dispossessing the Plaintiff -Appellant from the suit scheduled property except in accordance with law. Along with the suit an application came to be filed seeking for a temporary injunction. The matter was heard and after hearing learned trial Judge by a detailed order rejected the IA filed by the Plaintiff. It is this order that is questioned by the Appellant -Plaintiff in this appeal.