N RAMA RAJU Vs. T T D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two C.M.As. can be disposed of by a common order since the facts are identical and the question involved is also one and the same.

(2.) The appeals are directed against identical orders passed by the lower Court refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs in two suits for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs in both the suits are the licensees to run Janatha canteens at different places on Tirumala hills. They were granted the licence by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam for one year from 5-10-1997 to 4-10-1998. Before the expiry of the licence period i.e., on 27-8-1998, the plaintiffs made a representation to the Devasthanam seeking renewal/extension of the licence for a further period of one year. On 16-9-1998 the Devasthanam issued notices to the plaintiffs calling upon them to clear all the dues, if any, towards the licence fee and hand over possession of the Janatha canteens on the afternoon of 4-10-1998 positively. The plaintiffs thereupon made a further representation dated 22-9-1998 stating that they incurred heavy loss in the business and requesting the Devasthanam to renew the licences for a further period of three years on par with several others whose licences have been so renewed so as to enable them to recover their losses. By proceedings dated 28-10-1998, the Devasthanam, while rejecting their request for renewal of the licence, however, granted them winding up time of three months upto 4-1-1999 and called upon them to vacate the canteens by 4-1-1999 to facilitate the T.T.D. to hand over the same to the fresh tenderers. It is stated that the said proceedings were received by the plaintiffs on 7-11-1998. In the mean time the plaintiffs filed the present suits on 4-11-1998 alleging that their applications for renewal of the licences were still pending consideration and obtained interim orders of status quo. After hearing both parties, the lower Court, by the impugned orders dated 16-7-1999, dismissed the applications for temporary injunction and vacated the status quo orders granted on 9-11-1998 holding that the possession of the plaintiffs after the expiry of the licence period is unlawful and that a person in unlawful; possession is not entitled to the equitable relief of temporary injunction. The lower Court further held that the plaintiffs obtained the orders of status quo on 9-11-1998 suppressing the fact mat they received the proceedings dated 28-10-1998 of the Devasthanam rejecting theirrequest for renewal of the licence and they are, therefore, disentitled for the equitable relief of injunction.

(3.) According to the respondents after the dismissal of the injunction petition by the lower Court, possession of the premises was taken on 20-7-1999 without any resistance or objection from the plaintiffs and the premises have been put under the lock and key of the Devasthanam. It is also further pleaded that the T.T.Devasthanam invited fresh tenders for grant of licences to run the canteens for a period of one year commencing from 1-4-1999 to 31-3-2000 in the month of February, 1999 and a third party by name N. Jayalakshmi was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- towards the licence fee for R.B.G.H. Janatha Canteen but no further steps could be taken in view of the pendency of the proceedings.