JAMALUDDIN Vs. MIRZA QUADER BAIG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions arise out of the same facts and the same suit. They are heard together and can be conveniently disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioner in these two revisions is said to be the owner of the premises (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord") bearing Municipal No.16-5-183 situated at Dabeerpura, Hyderabad, (for short 'the suit premises'). The first respondent is the tenant, he will be referred to as such. The second respondent is the proforma party. The tena'nt filed O.S. No.2064 of 1992 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the land-lord for a perpetual injunction restraining the land-lord from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit premises. In the suit he filed I.A. No.637 of 1992 under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. praying the Court to grant interim injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession. It appears that ex parte interim injunction was granted by the trial Court in May, 1992, which was made absolute after hearing both the parties on 16-3-1993. Against the said order, the land-lord filed C.M.A. No.147 of 1993.

(3.) Alleging that on August 11,1992, the land-lord forcibly dispossessed him from the suit premises in violation of the order of interim injunction granted by the trial Court on 19-5-1992, the tenant filed I.A. No.896 of 1992 praying the Court to restore him into possession of the suit premises. That I.A. was resisted by the land-lord alleging that even according to the tenant, he was already dispossessed on 16-5-1992 before the filing of the suit (The suit was filed on 19-5-1992), therefore, the story set up by the tenant is wholly incorrect.