K ANKAIAH Vs. TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order dated 18-12-1999 in C.M.A. No. 36 of 1999 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupathi confirming the order dated 3-12-1999 in LA. No. 2111 of 1997 in O.S.No. 1075 of 1997 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi.

(2.) Necessary facts for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows: The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 1075 of 1997. They were owning immovable property in Tirumala Hills. They were doing business in the shops situated in their own property. Those shop rooms and adjacent immoveable property were acquired for the purpose of Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanams (hereinafter called as "T.T.D."). They were given compensation for acquisition of their properties. In addition to giving monetary compensation to the plaintiffs, the T.T.D. agreed to construct some shop rooms in Second Sannadhi Street in Tirumala and allot some shop rooms to the plaintiffs. T.T.D. did not yet construct shop rooms in Second Sannadhi Street. According to the plaintiffs pending construction and allotment of shop rooms in Second Sannadhi Street, defendants - T.T.D, allotted the plaint schedule shop rooms to the plaintiffs as alternative accommodation to enable the plaintiffs to carry on their business till the shop rooms are constructed in Second Sannadhi Street and allotted to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the suit originally seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants - T.T.D. from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule shop rooms. Along with the suit, they filed an application in LA. No. 2111 of 1997 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., requesting the trial Court to grant temporary injunction restraining the T.T.D., from in any way interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property with all amenities till the disposal of the suit. According to the plaintiffs T.T.D. tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property and therefore the plaintiffs were forced to file the suit. The interim injunction application was opposed by T.T.D. During enquiry, the petitioners-plaintiffs marked Exs.P-1 to P-21 and the defendants-T.T.D marked Exs.R-1 to R-10. On a consideration of the documentary evidence adduced before him, the Junior Civil Judge held that the defendants did not allot plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs as alternative accommodation. Accordingly he dismissed the interim injunction application by order dated 3-12-1999. Aggrieved by that order, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge at Tirupathi. The appellate Judge dismissed the appeal on merits. Aggrieved by the orders of the appellate Court, the plaintiffs preferred the present revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the revision petitioners are admittedly in possession of plaint schedule property on the date of the suit, even if they are treated as trespassers or licensees, the defendants are not entitled to evict the plaintiffs from the possession of the suit property otherwise than in due process of law and till they are evicted in due process of law, they are entitled to seek protection of their possession and obtain orders of injunction in their favour. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied upon various decisions in support of his contention that even trespassers or licensees after expiry of the period of licence cannot be dispossessed from the properties in their possession even by the real owner unless the real owner follows the procedure laid down by law to evict and seek possession of the properties. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents - T.T.D. contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled for interim injunction in their favour as their possession is unlawful and there are no grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the appellate Court and the trial Court.