DEEN DAYAL Vs. M SAMBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P. No. 3168 of 1993: This revision petition is filed by the defendants in O.S. No.524 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Warangal against the order dated 25-8-1993 made in LA. No.762 of 1993.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are: The plaintiff (respondent herein) filed the suit for specific performance of lease agreement dated 30-9-1988 executed by the defendants (petitioners herein). The plaintiff made the following averments in the plaint. He is the tenant of the defendants, living in their house on a monthly rental of Rs.500/-. Subsequently the defendants filed R.C.C. No.26 of 1983 before the Rent Controller, Warangal for the eviction of the plaintiff. Ultimately the matter was settled, resulting in the execution of the lease agreement dated 30-9-1988 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff suspected the bona fides of the defendants, he got issued a suit notice dated 31-6-1993. The defendants managed toavoid receiving of the same. Again the plaintiff got issued the notice on 7-7-1993 which was received by the defendants on 8-7-1993. The defendants sent a reply notice on 10-7-93. Therefore the plaintiff filed the suit. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed I.A. No.762/93 for a temp or ary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit mulgi by execution of the decree dated 19-9-88.

(3.) The defendants filed counter denying in general the plaintallegations and raising the following contentions. The defendants got onlyl /4th share in the suit property. Therefore the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property belongs to the defendants is not correct. The alleged lease deed is bogus, illegal and cannot be enforced. The defendants never agreed to let any portion of the suit property to the plaintiff. They never tried to avoid receipt of the suit notice. The suit for specific performance of alleged contract is not maintainable. The plaintiff is bound by the decree in R.C.C. No.26 of 1983 and cannot go behind the decree. There is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not come to the Court with dean hands. Therefore they prayed that the petition may be dismissed with costs.