SYED SADAK ALI KHAN Vs. DEPTHI BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these proceedings are interconnected, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties to these proceedings would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in CRP No.633 of 2004.

(3.) In the suit filed by the first respondent seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the revision petitioner from interfering with his possession over the plaint schedule property he filed two petitions (i) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking an injunction during the pendency of the suit restraining the revision petitioners and their agents and servants or any persons claiming through them, from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property i.e. land measuring 1,012.12 sq.yards in S.No.43 at Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad and (ii) under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to deposit half share of the revision petitioner in the arrears of rent and future rent in respect of the suit property, alleging that the revision petitioners who are the owners of the vacant site of 1,012.12 sq. yards in S.No.43 at Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad wanted to construct a building complex therein but as the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, earmarked that property as a park they could not obtain permission for construction of a building therein, and so they approached it for construction of a multi-storied complex in that site on an understanding that that site would be leased to it for 15 years on an annual rent of Rs.90,000/- from 9-8-1996 to 8-9-1991 and at Rs.1,00,000/- p.a. from 9-9-1991 to 8-9-1996 and at Rs.1,29,600/- p.a. from 9-9-1996 to 8-9-2001 and that after 15 years lease period half share of the constructed building would go to it and the remaining half share would go to the revision petitioners and though it paid the rents till 8-9-2001, revision petitioners, got issued a legal notice on 25.5.2000 claiming arrears of rent and so it sent the rents through cheques and pay orders under reply dated 13-6-2000 and that the revision petitioners, after receiving the reply sent a notice on 5.9.2001 demanding vacation of their half share portion of the building, for which it sent a reply on 28-9-2001 and as there was a clear understanding between it and the revision petitioners that after expiry of the 15 years lease period, revision petitioners have to execute and register a sale deed in respect of its half share in the premises constructed by it at a huge cost and as the revision petitioners, by relying on a nominal document executed by it, which was never acted upon, are falsely claiming the entire building constructed by it as theirs have issued a legal notice dated 1-4-2002 to its tenants with false allegations claiming rents from them, though they have no privity of contract with those tenants inducted by it, revision petitioners may be restrained by an injunction from interfering with its possession over the suit property and it may be permitted it to deposit the half of arrears of rent and the future rents payable to the revision petitioners into Court.