P PRABHAVATHI Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises from the Judgment and Order dated 2. 7. 1996, passed by the II Additional Munsiff, Gulbarga, which has been confirmed by the Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga, as appellate Court, by Judgment and Order dated 2. 8. 1996, whereby the Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the order of the Trial Court rejecting the petitioner's application I. A. I, for temporary injunction filed in O. S. No. 428/1995, whereby the petitioner had prayed for temporary injunction restraining the defendants respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property in dispute and with the business in the name of Nandini Milk Parlour being run at Central Bus-Stand, ksrtc, Gulbarga, till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) PLAINTIFF claiming to be power of attorney holder of Nandini Milk Parlour at KSRTC Bus Stand, filed a suit for permanent injunction with the allegations to the effect that plaintiff is running nandini Milk Parlour at KSRTC Bus-stand, Gulbarga, since 18. 9. 1991, with the permission of Gulbarga Co-operative Milk Produqers federation Limited, Gulbarga, on terms and conditions and has been paying a monthly ground rent of Rs. 285/- per month with commission of Rs. 500/- per month to defendant No. 1. Plaintiff alleged that plaintiff had furnished the Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and, as per agreement, she has constructed a Stall at Bus Stand, Gulbarga, by investing huge sum of money and he is selling milk and milk products from 5 a. m. to 11 p. m. Plaintiff - revision petitioner alleged that through out the lease, the ground rent and commission was paid upto 17. 9. 1994. Petitioner's case, as per plaint has been that the defendant No. 1 enhanced the ground rend and the plaintiff agreed and invested another sum of rs. 3,00,000/- to reach the Profit and alleged agreement was executed. Plaintiff's case is that plaintiff has invested heavy amount in the business and his business is the only source of his livelihood. The licence of the plaintiff has been renewed from 17. 9. 1994 to 17. 9. 1995. But surprisingly on 1. 9. 1995, defendant No,1, issued notice asking the plaintiff to remove her belongings from the premises and to vacate the premises within 7 days, which notice the revision petitioner alleged, to be illegal. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendant No. 1 may and is likely to take the law into hand to remove her, as he wants and intends to give the premises to somebody else on higher rent. The plaintiff alleged and claimed that it is necessary that the defendants be restrained from illegally dispossessing the plaintiff from the property in dispute.

(3.) ALONG with the plaint of the suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that pending decision of the cases, defendants be restrained from interfering with plaintiff's possession over the property in dispute as well as from interfering with the running of plaintiff's business of nandini Milk.