SHA SULTHANA Vs. ANIL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision and the writ petition are between the same parties and in relation to the same dispute. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the writ petition. The 1st respondent is a Government Owned Petroleum Company. Earlier it was known as ESSO Standard Easternin Corporate Oil Company. After nationalisation, it is known with the present name. The Company took on lease, a site owned by Sha Sulthana, shown as 2nd respondent herein, now represented by her legal heirs, respondents 3 and 4, and established an outlet at Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. Sri Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal, the father of the petitioner was appointed as dealer to run the petroleum outlet. An agreement, granting licence from time to time, is entered into between the 1st respondent and the dealer. The last of such agreements was executed on 16-08-2006, to be in force for 10 years. Mahaveer Prasad died on 05-12-2009, and the petitioner is said to be his legal heir.

(2.) The owners of the land, i.e. respondents 2, 3 and 4 filed O.S. No. 5497 of 2003 in the Court of XVI Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, against the 1st respondent for eviction from the premises, after issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was later on re-numbered as 313 of 2007. The trial Court decreed the suit on 22-12-2008. A.S. No. 44 of 2009 filed by the 1st respondent herein, in the Court of X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad was dismissed on 19-10-2010. Second Appeal No. 1192 of 2011 filed before this Court was also dismissed on 09-09-2011. Six months time was granted to the 1st respondent for vacating the premises.

(3.) The decree-holders i.e. respondents 2, 3 and 4 filed E.P. No. 12 of 2011 for execution of the decree, pleading that the 1st respondent did not vacate the premises as directed in the decree and within the time stipulated by this Court. The Executing Court issued delivery warrant against the 1st respondent. At that juncture, the petitioner filed E.A. No. 16 of 2012, under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., and E.A. No. 17 of 2012, for stay of the execution of the decree. On finding that there was no attachment of the property, the petitioner filed E.A. No. 18 of 2012 to amend E.A. No. 16 of 2012, so as to bring it within the purview of Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI C.P.C.