THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4407 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner filed O.S.No.50 of 2010 in the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against respondents for injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that he is tenant of the respondents and they are trying to dispossess him without instituting any proceedings before the Court of law. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.26 of 2010 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC for temporary injunction. The trial Court initially granted an order of ad-interim injunction and thereafter the same was made absolute through order dated 30.06.2010. The respondents filed C.M.A.No.09 of 2010 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was allowed on 06.09.2010 and the order of temporary injunction was vacated. Hence, this revision. Sri P.Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client is tenant for the past several years and is also paying rents to the respondents. He submits that once the possession is admitted by the respondents, they cannot be permitted to evict the petitioner or otherwise interfere with his possession except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that even according to the petitioner, he was inducted into possession by one Mr. Jamsheer who was the original tenant and there was no relationship between the respondents and the petitioner. He contends that a civil Court would aid a citizen to protect possession if only there is an element of legality in it and such a facility cannot be extended to person or who does not hold any right. The petitioner pleaded that he is a tenant of the suit schedule premises and prayed for injunction. He has filed voluminous evidence before the trial Court to prove his possession and the legality thereof. Though it is alleged that he is in possession of the premises for the past several years, this is not the stage at which the same needs to be taken into account. The petitioner did not place before the trial Court, any material to show that he is the tenant of the respondents. On the other hand, Ex.P.27, lease agreement dated 21.01.2004, filed by him discloses that he was inducted into possession of the premises by one Mr. Jamsheer. The respondents categorically stated that Mr.Jamsheer was the tenant of the premises and in the lease deed executed in his favour, there is a clause prohibiting sub-lease. The lower appellate Court has analysed the matter in detail with reference to the documentary evidence and recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner did not have any relationship whatever with the respondents vis-à-vis the suit schedule premises. It may be true that the petitioner is in possession of the premises. All the same, once he pleads the possession in the capacity of a tenant and a finding is recorded to the effect that he is not a tenant of the respondents, he cannot claim the benefit of injunction. The lower appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time for the petitioner to vacate the suit schedule premises. The said request is opposed by the respondents. However, having regard to the fact that an engineering shop is being run in the suit schedule premises, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed granting time up to 15th January 2011 to the petitioner to vacate the premises. On delivery of possession of the premises to the respondents, the Suit shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 28th October 2010 cvrk