HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.3529 of 2007 And S.A.Nos.1319 and 1320 of 2006 Date: 15-04-2011 C.R.P.No.3529 of 2007: Between: Mahadev Barmaji and others ……. Petitioners and M/s. Umraolal Jairam ……. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.3529 of 2007 And S.A.Nos.1319 and 1320 of 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since the subject matter in all these matters is one and the same between the same parties, hence, they are taken up together for the purpose of considering the questions which are involved and which run almost on the same lines, and for disposal. The petitioners in the revision in C.R.P.No.3529 of 2007 and the appellants in both the appeals are the landlords and the common respondent is the tenant. Initially the tenant had filed a petition purportedly under Section 8(5) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, seeking permission to deposit the rents at Rs.95/- per month. The premises involved is a non-residential one. After contest by the landlords, the petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller. Thereafter, on further appeal by the tenant, the same was allowed as per the orders, dated 15-02-2007 in R.A.No.70 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved thereby, the landlords have filed this Revision Petition. Coming to the other two appeals, both of them arise out of the suits filed by the tenant and landlords for injunction not to interfere with their possession. After regular trial, the trial Court dismissed the suits. However, on further appeals, the appeal filed by the tenant was allowed, and the appeal filed by the landlords was dismissed. Hence, aggrieved thereby, the landlords filed both the appeals. There is an assertion on the part of the tenant to continue in possession on the basis of the tenancy as long as he is not evicted in the manner, which is known to law. Admittedly the landlords also filed another suit for injunction and the same was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the appeal in S.A.No.1320 of 2006. From these facts, it transpires that no eviction proceedings as such have been initiated by the landlords against the tenant for eviction or for possession. There is no explanation forthcoming on their behalf inspite of the fact that the proceedings are pending between the parties almost from the year 2001 onwards by initiation of injunction proceedings or by deposit of rents by the tenant. In the absence of any valid proceedings for eviction, the landlords cannot seek that the tenant cannot remain in possession. However, during the course of arguments, it has been pointed on behalf of the landlords that the building fell down in the midnight of 06/07-08-2001 and therefore, nothing survives and no relief as such could be granted to the tenant nor a protection can be afforded. Be that as it may. If really the lease exists and tenancy rights subsist, merely because the building has fallen down that itself does not come to an end unless the tenant is rightly evicted. In the absence of proper eviction proceedings initiated, it cannot be said that the tenant has no subsisting right. In view of the findings arrived at by both the Rent Controller and by the appellate authority in deposit of the rents and also on the civil side in regard to the possession of the tenant and his entitlement for possession, no substantial question of law arises in any of these proceedings to warrant interference by this Court either under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, or even under Section 100 of C.P.C. Hence, I do not find any merits in these three matters. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition and both the Second Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 15-04-2011 YCR