HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.4530 of 2010 Dated 07-10-2010 Between: P.Sudhaker ……..Petitioner Vs. Satyanarayana Totla and others. ………Respondents HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.4530 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 05-06-2010 in E.A.No.21 of 2010 in E.P.No.1 of 2010 in O.S.No.511 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is the tenant of the petition schedule shop Nos.69 and 70, situated at Chenoy Trade Centre, 116, Park Lane, Secunderabad, belonging to R-1 and R-2. Prior to his tenancy, R-2 took the shop of R-1 on rental basis and clubbed his shop with the shop of R-1 and run Venus foot-ware shop for more than 15 years. Later R-2 due to suffering with paralysis, unable to do business. Then the petitioner took over the business of R-2 and entered the oral tenancy with R-1 and R-2. He also paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards advance and Rs.1,500/- for each shop towards rent in the presence of R-1, R-4 and others. While so, R-1 mischievously in collusion with R-2 to R-4, filed a suit in O.S.No.511 of 2004 on the file of the XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against R-2 to R-4 for recovery of possession and obtained decree. The Court bailiff came to his shops for the purpose of delivery of possession and locked the shops. On his enquiry, it was brought to his notice that R-1 filed a suit and obtained decree. Therefore, immediately he approached the trial Court and filed the present application seeking stay of all further proceedings. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application holding that the petitioner failed to prove prima facie case with regard to the maintainability of the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. As seen from the record, it is clear that the petitioner is claiming his rights through R-1 who is the owner of shop No.70. But R-1 filed the suit against R-2 in respect of shop No.70 showing R-2 as tenant, for eviction and recovery of arrears. The said suit was decreed and the same was confirmed in the appeal by this Court. This Court observed that the appellant-R-2 was doing business in the premises by effecting alterations. Against the said judgment, R-3 and R-4 approached the Supreme Court. As per record, R-3 and R-4 are in possession of the premises and they are L.Rs. of R-2. Therefore, the petitioner can claim any right through R-3 and R-4 only, but not through R-1. The petitioner is not the tenant of R-1. There is no privity of contract between the petitioner and R-1. The petitioner has no prima facie case. Further he did not try to get himself impleaded as a party in the suit or in the appeal. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and that the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference by this court. 5. I do not see any merits in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ October 7, 2010 KVR