BALAJI TRADING COMPANY Vs. VEERASWAMY SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is plaintiff. He instituted the suit for an injunction to restrain the defendants from disturbing his possession and working of the Visakha Flour Mill (which will hereinafter be referred to as "the Mill"). He obtained in the trial Court temporary injunction pending the suit. The appellate Court vacated that injunction. This revision is for setting aside the order of the appellate Court and for the restoration of the trial Court's order granting temporary injunction.

(2.) The mill is located in Visakhapatnam. The premises was originally owned by the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant is the son-in-law of the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant is the 2nd defendant's son. The 4th defendant is a relation of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant executed gift deeds endowing a 6 annas share of the mill to the 3rd defendant, another 6 annas share to the 4th defendant and a 2 annas share to the 1st defendant and retained for himself the 2 annas share. In the year 1970, the defendants 1 to 4 leased out the mill under a registered lease deed dated 10th June, 1970 to the plaintiff on an annual rental of rupees one lakh. The lease was for four years and it came into effect by agreement of parties so as to result in the expiry of the period of four years by 31st October, 1975. By the time the original lease period expired, defendants 1 to 4 owed more than Rs. 2,80,000 to the plaintiff and lease was extended for a further period of three years from 1st November, 1975 to 1st November, 1978. On 31st March. 1978, a one anna share was sold by the 3rd defendant to the 5th defendant. While so, the 1st defendant addressed a letter dated 18th October, 1978 to the plaintiff requesting him to vacate the mill within ten days from the date of the receipt of the notice. By this time, the defendant owed the plaintiff more than rupees four lakhs. Suspecting that the defendants might attempt to take forcible possession of the mill, the plaintiff wrote a registered letter dated 26th October, 1978 to the 1st defendant marking a copy to the District Collector. Visakhapatnam. He sent another letter to the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam. On 27th October, 1978, the plaintiff received a letter written by defendants 3 and 5 intimating him that the lease period was extended for a further period of three years from 1st November, 1978. Subsequently, on I3th December, 1978, the plaintiff instituted the suit alleging that the 1st defendant made a vain bid with the assistance of the police to take forcible possession of the mill at about 10-30 p.m. on 11th December, 1978 and that the 1st defendant is still trying to take forcible possession even though he and other defendants owed a sum of Rs.4,33,00/-18ps. by 31st October, 1978 and the lease was extended by three years. It is prayed by plaintiff that, until evicted from the mill premises in due course of law, the defendants should be restrained from causing any acts of disturbance to his possession and enjoyment of the mill.

(3.) The plea of the 1st defendant is that the lease was not extended beyond 31st October, 1978. It was the 1st defendant alone that was managing the property on behalf of all the co-owners and the plaintiff voluntarily delivered possession of the suit premises late in the evening of llth December, 1978. While delivering possession, the managing partner of the plaintiff informed the 1st defendant that he would be lifting the stocks and all records and other furniture the next day and locked them, but did not comply with his promise. On the other hand gave a false report at the Police Station. According to the 1st defendant, the plaintiff voluntarily delivered possession of the mill on 11th December, 1978 and he cannot, therefore, seek an injunction in regard to the mill of which he has no possession by the date of the suit.