ANANDAM G Vs. WARANGAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in these Revision Petitions is maintainability of Execution Application in Execution Petition No.4/96 and the correctness of the order passed by the learned Judge. All the 26 C.R.Ps. are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) C.R.P. Nos.2356/96 to 2361/96 and '2520/96 to 2523/96 are filed by the Decree-holders in O.S. No.45/83. C.R.P. Nos.3140/96 to 3155/96 are filed by the Judgment-debtor i.e.. Municipal Corporation of Warangal in O.S. No.45/83. The brief facts out of which the present C.R.Ps. arose are as follows: The Municipal Corporation-respondent constructed shopping complex in 1977 in Warangal. The said complex was leased out for a period of five years to the petitioners from 1-1-1978. The lease contemplates renewal of lease for a further period of five years. The original period of lease having expired on 31-12-1987, eviction notices were issued by the Municipal Corporation to the petitioners for eviction. The petitioners filed Original Suit No.45/83 and other batch of suits contending that they are entitled to continue in possession as there is no default in payment of rent and that they are entitled for renewal of lease and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent-Municipal Corporation from evicting them. The suit was dismissed by the Prl. District Munsif. On appeal, it was allowed and permanent injunction restraining the respondent from evicting the petitioners was granted. The decrees that were passed by the appellate Court reads as follows: "This Court doth order and decree that the appeal be and is hereby allowed and that the judgment and decree of the lower Court dated 18-11-1985 be and is hereby set aside and that the suit of the Appellant-plaintiff be and is hereby decreed that the respondent-defendant and its employees be and are hereby restrained permanently from evicting the appellant-plaintiff from the suit premises". Thereafter, the petitioners continued in possession of the various tenements. They were also paying rent at the enhanced rate enhancing the rent by 33 1/3 % after every five years. The renewal of lease dated 1-1-83 expired by 31-12-87 and the lease that commenced on 1-1-1988 expired on 31-12-1992 and the lease commenced on 1-1-1993 would expire on 31-12-96. There was no default in payment of rent. The decree has become final as no appeal was filed. While so, on 28-5-96 the second respondent and his officers evicted the petitioners forcibly by throwing away the articles in the Shops and locked the premises high-handedly, illegally and arbitrarily. Therefore, the petitioners filed E.P. No.4/96 under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for arrest and attachment of the property belonging to the respondent. Pending disposal of the E.P. they also filed E.A. No.2/96 requesting the Court to restore possession in exercise of the power under Section 151 CPC. The first Additional Subordinate Judge passed the impugned order which reads as follows: "On considering the urgency in the interest of justice to protect the rights under the decree, the S.H.O. Police Station, Intezargunj is directed to give police aid to implement the decree till 4-6-1996 if the petitioner is not dispossessed". He also directed notice to the respondent. Aggrieved by the observation of the Second Additional Sub-Judge observing that police aid to implement the decree till 4-6-1990 (sic. 1996) is given if the petitioner is not dispossessed, the Decree- holders filed CRP Nos.2356/96 to 2361/96 and 2520/96 to 2523/96. On receipt of notice, the judgment-debtors aggrieved by the order filed the other CRPs i.e., CRP Nos.3140/96 to 3155/96.

(3.) The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is a decree in their favour restraining the respondent from interfering with their possession. The decree has become final. The decree is binding on the respondent. As long as the decree is in force, the respondent cannot interfere with their possession and they have no right to evict them, that too forcibly. The action of the respondent is in violation of the decree passed by the Court in O.S. No.45/83. Therefore, they filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 32 subclause (sic. sub-rule) (1) CPC seeking arrest of the respondent. Pending disposal of the said application, the petitioners invoked the inherent power of the Court seeking restoration of possession. The learned Counsel relied on Jamaluddin vs. Mirza Quader Baig; Special Deputy Collector vs. K. Laxrna Reddy; Manohar Lal vs. Seth Hiralal.