GOLLU BHAVANI SANKAR Vs. BHOGAVALLI RAJESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dismissing an application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 10 C.P.C. seeking stay of R.C.C.No. 11 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem pending disposal of the suit O.S.No. 45/1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

(2.) The facts leading to this revision petition may be stated briefly:The petitioner herein is the 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No. 45/1995 which is filed by the petitioner along with his mother for specific perfomance of an agreement of sale dt. 5-1-1995 alleged to have been executed by one K.Kasi Viswanatham, who figures as the first defendant in the said suit, in their favour agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to them for a total sale consideration of three lakhs fifteen thousand. The said suit was filed on the allegations that on the date of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 65,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs by way of advance to the vendor and that it was agreed that the sale transaction should be completed by 5-5-1995. Even though the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement, the vendor colluded with respondents 1 and 2 herein who figure as defendants 2 and 3 in the said suit, and executed a registered sale deed dt. 28-3-1995 in their favour. It is also stated that respondents 1 and 2 are not bona fide purchasers for value and they had notice of the prior agreement in favour of the plaintiffs and hence they are bound by the same and are bound to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with the (1st) defendant. The suit was accordingly filed claiming the reliefs of specific performance of the agreement of sale dt. 5-1-1995 and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property or in the alternative for refund of the advance amount of Rs. 65,000/- besides a sum of Rs. 75,000/- by way of damages. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are contesting the said suit inter alia on the grounds that the alleged agreement of sale dt. 5-1-1995 is a rank forgery and that the same was fraudulently brought into existence with an ante-date so as to defeat the rights of respondents 1 and 2 who are bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration.

(3.) After purchase of the property by them, respondents 1 and 2 have filedR.C.C.No. 11/1995 on the file of the RentController-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem against the petitioner herein and three others for eviction from the petition schedule building on the ground that they were originally inducted as tenants by the vendor and that after sale of the property they were attorned to respondents 1 and 2 and they committed wilful default in payment of the rents and also on the ground that the building is bonafide required for personal occupation. The petitioner herein figures as the fourth respondent in the R.C.C. whereas respondents 2 and 3 therein are his father and brother respectively and the first respondent is the firm Of which they arc the partnefs. The petitioner herein and the other respondents in R.C.C. 11/1995 are contesting the said eviction petition contending inter alia that respondents 1 and 2 have no title to the schedule building in view of the prior agreement of sale dt. 5-1-1995 in favour of the petitioner and his mother which is valid and binding on respondents 1 and 2, that they have not committed any wilful default in payment of the rents and the alleged personal occupation set-up by respondents 1 and 2 is neither true nor bona fide.