MOHD AFTAB ALI KHAN Vs. MOHD AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a piece of litigation which is indulged in by the petitioner with the sole aim of frustrating the decree obtained by respondent No. 1 by raising the most frivolous objection regarding the Power of Attorney held by respondent No. 1. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are, respondent No. 1 through his General Power of Attorney filed O.S.No. 1730 of 199.6 in the Court of the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioner and respondent No. 2. The said suit was decreed by the lower Court on 03.04.2006. The said judgment was confirmed in A.S.No. 204 of 2006 by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009. The petitioner, thereafter, filed S.A.No. 244 of 2009. In the second appeal, the petitioner filed S.A.M.P.No. 679 of 2009 for permission to retain the possession for one academic year and to permit him to vacate the premises thereafter. Having considered the said petition, this Court while dismissing the second appeal granted permission to the petitioner to vacate the premises on or before 10.04.2010. Thereafter, on the eve of expiry of one year time granted by this Court, the petitioner filed S.A.M.P.No. 706 of 2010 for extension of time by another six months. This Court by order, dated 09.04.2010, extended time up to 10.10.2010. Not being satisfied with the same, the petitioner filed another application namely S.A.M.P.No. 2378 of 2010. This Court has extended its discretion in favour of the petitioner by again extending time up to 31.05.2011 'finally' by order, dated 20.10.2010. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner again moved one more application i.e., S.A.M.P.No. 1219 of 2011 for further extension of time. The said application was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 31.05.2011, extending time till 31.07.2011 by making it clear that no further extension will be granted. The petitioner has once again filed another application i.e., S.A.M.P.No. 1931 of 2011 for further extension of time. This Court by order, dated 29.07.2011, has dismissed the said application.

(2.) As the petitioner failed to hand over the possession after expiry of the time last extended by this Court, the landlord-respondent No. 1 got filed E.A.No. 194 of 2011 through his General Power of Attorney holder namely Habeeb Ali for permission to him to pursue the E.P. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application that his earlier General Power of Attorney holder Mohd. Yousuf died on 12.10.2010 and that, therefore, it has become necessary for him to appoint a new General Power of Attorney i.e., Habeeb Ali to pursue the E.P. This application was resisted by the petitioner. The lower Court having considered the application has allowed the same by rejecting the objections. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition.

(3.) From the facts noted above, it is quite evident that the petitioner is trying to take advantage of the helpless situation of the absentee landlord, who is staying abroad, by raising frivolous objections on the General Power of Attorney appointed by the landlord for pursuing the E.P.