KEKI P IRANI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:

(2.) The petitioner No.1 claims to be running a function hall in the premises of respondent No.7. It is stated that there are three civil suits i.e, O.S.No.1243 of 2021, O.S.No.21 of 2022 and O.S.No.115 of 2022, pending between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.7. The suit in O.S.No.115 of 2022 is filed by respondent No.7 against the petitioner No.1 for recovery of amount as rent/mesne profits/damages upto June, 2022. It is averred that the respondent No.7 has managed the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and with their active connivance broke open the locks of respondent No.7-club, which is in occupation of the petitioners. It is stated that petitioners have taken photos and videos of highhanded action of the respondents-police and the petitioner No.1 also lodged a complaint on the file of D.G.P. It is further stated that all the belongings of the petitioners are in the premises of respondent No.7 and the same would establish their possession. It is further stated that petitioner No.1 filed an application in O.S.No.21 of 2022 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take his inventory/material lying in the function hall but the said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished details of inventory items. The respondent No.7-club held a meeting on 16/4/2023 which was reported in newspaper and the same establishes that the petitioners are in possession of the function hall. It is the case of the petitioners is that respondent No.7 and its members with the assistance of respondent-police are frequently interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the premises of respondent No.7-club and the respondents-police are not having any power or authority to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.7 in any manner. It is further case of the petitioners that with the connivance of respondent Nos.3 and 4, the respondent No.7 is making efforts to take forcible possession without following the procedure prescribed under law, which action on the part of respondents amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The respondent No.7 being the contesting party, has filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein inter alia it is stated that the petitioner No.1 is a habitual litigant and to occupy the premises of the respondent No.7-club, petitioner No.1 instituted numerous litigations from 2015 onwards, falsely claiming to be a tenant, despite various Courts repeatedly held that the Petitioner No.1 is not a tenant of the premises of respondent No.7. It is further stated that even though the Petitioners failed to obtain any favourable orders from Civil Courts, with an ulterior motive used the legal process to continue their business at the property of the Respondent No.7 and earning huge sums by conducting third party functions detrimental to the interest of the respondent No.7. It is further stated that respondent No.7-club has instituted a suit vide O.S.No.21 of 2022 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the said Court vide order dtd. 7/2/2022 in I.A.No.113 of 2022 granted ad interim injunction restraining the petitioner No.1 herein from interfering with the schedule property in any manner and after final adjudication of the said I.A, vide order dtd. 7/2/2023, interim injunction order was made absolute. Thereafter, the respondent No.7 filed an application vide I.A.No.942/2022 in I.A.No.113/2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2022 under order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC seeking attachment of bank account of petitioner No.1 herein and to punish him by sending him to civil prison for a period of three months for willful disobedience of the injunction order passed in I.A.No.113/2022. Vide order dtd. 22/11/2022, the said I.A.No.942/2022 was allowed and the petitioner No.1 was ordered to be sent to civil imprisonment for a period of two months. Challenging the same, the petitioner No.1 filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.587/2022 on the file of this Court and the said appeal was dismissed by this Court confirming the order dtd. 22/11/2022 passed by the Court below. It is further stated that on the similar pleadings and seeking similar relief, earlier, the Petitioner No.1 filed Writ Petition No.11527 of 2022 and this Court vide order dtd. 20/4/2022 disposed of the said Writ Petition. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking similar relief is untenable and barred by principle of constructive res judicata. It is further stated that the principle of constructive res judicata is applicable even in writ proceedings and therefore, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the respondent No.7 is a Club belonging to the minority Zoroastrian community of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, established in 1915, registered as a society under the Societies Act vide Registration No.31 of 1954. Its objective is to promote cultural, social and religious activities amongst its members, provide sporting and character-building amenities to a miniscule community with a population of only about 1000 people in the Twin cities. For raising finances for welfare of its members, respondent No.7 decided to permit third parties to use a portion (Mandapam) of the Club premises at 1/8/183 to 185, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad by conducting third party functions. It is further stated that the petitioner No.1 having failed to adhere to the terms and conditions, has filed a suit vide O.S. No. 433 of 2015 on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad on 11/8/2015 against the Respondent No.7-club, its President and others and initially, he obtained an ad interim ex-parte order of status quo in his favour. However, by a detailed order dtd. 16/11/2015 the interim order of status quo was vacated, and the Court held that the Petitioner No.1 is no way concerned with the premises of the Respondent No.7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, the Petitioner No.1 filed C.M.A.No.55 of 2015 on the file of I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. After contest, on 18/1/2016, the interim Order was vacated by I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Despite two successive failures, the Petitioner No.1 dishonestly attempting to obtain injunction against the Respondent No.7 and approached this Court by filing C.R.P. No.810 of 2016. This Court vide order dtd. 20/6/2016 disposed of the Revision Petition and directed the Additional Chief Judge to dispose of the C.M.A. on merits within 2 months. The C.M.A. was heard and dismissed by the Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad on 16/11/2016 confirming the order passed by the trial Court. As the Trial and Appellate Courts unequivocally held that Petitioner No.1 was not in possession of the Club premises, the Petitioner No.1 approached the Respondent No.7 for a compromise. As per regulations of the Club, the proposed Memo of Compromise was placed before an Extraordinary General Body Meeting (EGM) for its approval and the same was rejected and the petitioner was directed to remove all his belongings but he refused to do so. The petitioner No.1 having not digested the decision taken by the Managing Committee, made attempts to lock the premises with the help of anti-social elements, which necessitated the respondent No.7 to lodge a complaint and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.241/2017 for the offences under Ss. 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC. It is further stated that suppressing the said facts, on 21/9/2017, the Petitioner No.1 filed another suit vide O.S. No.162 of 2017 on the file of XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, seeking to enforce the proposed Memo of Compromise. Having come to know about the said suit, respondent No.7 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint and on 1/8/2019, the petitioner No.1 withdrew the said suit as not pressed. It is further stated that to keep the litigation alive, the petitioner No.1 with a malafide intention has filed Transfer O.P No. 2696 of 2017 seeking transfer of O.S.No.433 of 2015 on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad to XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad where the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.162 of 2017 is filed. The said Transfer O.P was dismissed vide order dtd. 31/8/2018. The petitioner No.1 without vacating the premises has instituted a suit vide O.S.No.104 of 2019 on the file of XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and subsequently, he withdrew the said suit as not pressed. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 filed another suit vide O.S.No.1243 of 2021 seeking injunction against the respondent No.7. When the petitioner No.1 did not take his belongings, the respondent No.7 was constrained to lodge a complaint dtd. 8/1/2022. It is further stated that the petitioner No.1 on one pretext or other to protract the litigation with malafide intention and abusing the process of law, has instituted suits and writ petitions on the file of this Court on one or other ground and even after dismissal of the said cases, the petitioner No.1 is interfering with the activities of the respondent No.7-club. Thus the petitioner No.1 is not entitled for any relief and the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.