YELLOGOLA RAMANARASAIAH Vs. G. SADANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision-petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that in spite of an order of injunction granted in his favour by the Civil Court in I.A. No. 855/89 on 13.4.1989 in O.S. 613/89 and in spite of the service of the said order on the 1st respondent on 15.4.1989 restraining the latter from evicting the revision-petitioner in an eviction petition in R.C. No. 79/83 from the subject-matter of the suit, the 1st respondent, after filing a written-statement and filing an application to advance the I.A. in O.S. No. 613/89, suddenly proceeded with execution of the eviction order obtained by him in the other proceeding viz., Rent Control proceeding in R.C. No. 79/83 against one Devasahayam and forcibly evicted the petitioner on the midnight of 3.7.1989.

(2.) THE position is like this on facts : One Devasahayam was the owner of the property and the revision-petitioner claims to be a purchaser from him under an agreement of sale dated 21.5.1977 for Rs. 23,000/-. The property is described with door No. as 5-9-172/1 Chapal Road, Hyderabad. The petitioner claims to have paid bulk of the consideration. The said Devasahayam sold property bearing Door No. 5-9-172, again in favour of the 1st respondent herein under a registered sale-deed dated 1.3.1978 for an alleged consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. On the basis that the vendor, Devasahayam became a tenant under him, the 1st respondent filed R.C. No. 79/83 in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction. The eviction proceedings were no doubt contested but ended in favour of the 1st respondent before the Rent Controller and on appeal and on further revision. The 1st respondent filed an execution petition against the said Devasahayam in 1985 and at that stage, the revision-petitioner filed E.A. 84/85 stating that he had purchased the same property under an agreement of sale dated 21.5.77 and was in possession. This was contested by the 1st respondent.

(3.) ON that basis, the petitioner then filed O.S. No. 613/89 on 13.4.89 for declaration of title and for injunction, impleading the 1st respondent as well as the legal representatives of Devasahayam as defendants. In this suit, the petitioner obtained temporary injunction in I.A. No. 855/89 on 13.4.89 restraining the 1st respondent from evicting the petitioner from the premises described as 5-9-192 in R.C. 70/83. The Civil Court granted a temporary injunction on 13.4.89 and the same was served on 1st respondent on 15.4.89. The 1st respondent filed a written-statement in the suit and a counter I.A. No. 855/89 and also moved another I.A. on 22.6.89 for advancement of I.A. 855/89 and vacating the interim injunction. That was ordered and the case stood advanced to 27.6.89. It was then adjourned to 29.6.89 and thereafter before the matter could be taken up, the 1st respondent changed his mind and in spite of the order of injunction against him, which was in force, moved the Rent Controller in R.C. 79/83 for eviction, obtained an order without notice to the revision-petitioner (as he was not a party in the R.C.) and evicted the petitioner on 3.7.89 in the midnight from the premises.