THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5441 of 2010 ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 6.10.2010 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.5 of 2010 on the file of the District Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby the order dated 3.12.2009 passed in I.A. No.958 of 2008 in O.S. No.479 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur was confirmed. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the interlocutory application for grant of interim injunction pending disposal of the suit, stating that the respondents/defendants are absolute owners of the schedule property and the petitioner took the same on lease on monthly rental basis and he is still their tenant by regularly paying the rents; that the respondents are trying to evict the petitioner forcibly and the petitioner is unable to resist the illegal acts of the respondents, and that if interim injunction is not granted, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. 3. The respondents/defendants filed their counter stating that the respondents corporation is under the control of the Agriculture and Co-operation Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and it is acting as a Nodal Agent of various Agriculture and Horticulture schemes framed by the Government; that the petitioner took lease of the schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.3,900/- from 2004 and the period of lease is 11 months only, but the same was extended from time to time; that as per condition 10 of the Agreement of Lease, if the lessor requires the building for its official use, the lessee shall vacate the property within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice, but the petitioner did not do so; that the respondents corporation requires the property for additional accommodation for its own office purpose; that the petitioner suppressed all material facts and so he is not entitled for any injunction. 3. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, held that the petitioner failed to establish that the respondents are trying to interfere with his possession and he came to the court without any interference, and so, failed to make out a prima facie case, and accordingly refused to grant interim injunction. On appeal, the appellate court confirmed the said order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, after expiry of the lease, the petitioner is continuing in the schedule property and the respondents are accepting rents and therefore he cannot be evicted from the premises, except in accordance with law. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision in Mogilipuvvu Annapurnaiah v. Malampati Narasimha Rao & another,[1] where it is held thus: “Possession of the tenant by sufferance cannot be considered as unauthorized. The possession of a tenant by sufferance is a ‘juridical possession. He is entitled to remain in possession of the demised premises till he is evicted in the course of law.” The above decision has no application to the facts of this case because that is a case of termination of tenancy by issuing a notice when a valid lease is subsisting between the parties therein. 5. Admittedly, the schedule premises belong to respondents corporation. The lease was initially granted for 11months and thereafter it was enhanced from time to time. As the lease expired on 30.6.2008, the respondents requested the petitioner to vacate the premises as the premises in question was required for the use of the corporation viz. for setting up a retail outlet for distribution of agricultural inputs to the farmers. As on the date of filing of the suit, petitioner has no right of whatsoever to remain possession of the property. When the property is required by the respondents, the petitioner is bound to vacate the same. Therefore, both the courts below rightly refused to grant interim injunction, and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 26.11.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5441 of 2010 26.11.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5441 of 2010 26.11.2010 Between: P.Gopinath …Petitioner And A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Anantapur rep. by its Regional Manager, Anantapur & another …Respondents [1] 1982 ALT 188