IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3243 of 2011 Between: M. Lalithamma & 2 others .. Petitioners AND Dr. Jillella Narsimha .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3243 of 2011 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order in C.M.A.No.32 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional District Judge’s Court (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, dated 06.06.2011, by which the civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed with costs confirming the order and decretal order in I.A.No.708 of 2010 in O.S.No.154 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, dated 30.10.2010, by which defendants 1 to 3 and their men were restrained from interfering with the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit. 2. O.S.No.154 of 2010 was filed by the respondent herein against the revision petitioners herein for a perpetual injunction restraining the revision petitioners herein and their men from interfering with plaint A and B schedule properties claiming that the respondent herein is the tenant of the properties since 2005. It was alleged that the respondent herein advanced a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to the first revision petitioner under a demand pronote, dated 14.09.2008, and when the agreed interest was paid by the first revision petitioner on 14.11.2008 after repeated demands, he also executed an ‘Appu Patram’ acknowledging the receipt of the amount and on the same day, the suit A schedule property consisting of three shops was leased out to the respondent herein. It was also further alleged that the rent was agreed to be adjusted towards the loan amount and there was also a ‘Kirayi Oppanda Patram’ on 14.11.2008 in respect of the suit A and B schedule properties with the first defendant depositing the original registered Sale Deed in document No.290/1980, dated 27.02.1980, with the respondent herein as security for the loan. The respondent herein alleged that the revision petitioners herein were trying to dispossess him from the suit A and B schedule properties and also alleged a specific incident on 21.06.2010. 3. He also sought for a temporary injunction against the revision petitioners herein pending the suit on the same allegations. 4. The first revision petitioner herein, in her counter affidavit, denied the tenancy and questioned the maintainability of the suit by a tenant against the landlord for an injunction. The Rental Agreement, dated 14.11.2008, was claimed to have been created after obtaining the signatures of the first revision petitioner on plain papers by playing fraud and the documents could not have been looked into without payment of proper stamp duty and penalty. The first revision petitioner also contended that apart from the Rental Agreement not referring to the shop numbers, a false case was foisted against her, her son and others in collusion with the police. She further stated that the respondent herein is not the tenant of the suit shop under any valid rental deed and his possession of the suit shops was illegal and unauthorized. She further submitted that if interim injunction is granted, the respondent herein will remain in the shop for ever as the rental deed is for unlimited period and she will be prevented from taking legal steps for his eviction. Hence, she desired the request for interim injunction to be negatived. 5. The trial Court, by an order, dated 30.10.2010, considered the rival pleadings and contentions and opined that it was not explained by the first revision petitioner as to how the registered Sale Deed, dated 27.02.1980, in her favour, came into the possession of the respondent herein. It was also observed that the genuineness of the ‘Appu Patram’, dated 14.11.2008, has to be decided in the suit and not in the interlocutory adjudication. It was also opined that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, the caveat filed by the first revision petitioner was in respect of the shops covered by the plaint A and B schedules and it was also observed that under the circumstances, when the existence of the medical shop and clinic in the suit schedule premises is not denied and the visit by the Drugs Inspector to the shop for filing a case against the respondent herein was also alleged, the revision petitioners herein cannot be permitted to dispossess the respondent herein. The trial Court, therefore, granted an interim injunction in favour of the respondent herein. 6. In C.M.A.No.32 of 2010, the Appellate Court again referred to the contentions about the inadmissibility of the rental deed, the absence of specification of the shop numbers in the rental deed, the absence of proof of possession of the respondent herein of the suit shops by the date of the suit and the untenability of a claim by a tenant against the landlord for a permanent injunction. The Appellate Court observed that the pleadings of the respondent herein about his tenancy from 2005 stood corroborated by the financial transactions between the parties and a case in Crime No.130/2010, filed by the first revision petitioner herself against the respondent herein. The Appellate Court also referred to the caveat filed by the first revision petitioner covering the same property and the custody of the documents of title of the first revision petitioner with the respondent herein. The conduct and pleadings of the parties were, hence, considered to show prima facie, the tenancy of the respondent herein over the suit schedule property and the Appellate Court, referring to the precedents cited before it, did not find any error or infirmity in the order of the trial Court. 7. The consequent dismissal of the appeal led the unsuccessful revision petitioners to approach this Court about the tenability of the orders of the Courts below without marking any documents and without looking into any evidence. The adjudication was criticized as unsustainable and illegal in the absence of proof of possession of the respondent herein over the suit schedule properties and the absence of proof of necessary ingredients for the grant of a temporary injunction. 8. The point for consideration herein is whether the interim injunction, granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, is susceptible to interference in revision. 9. The ownership of the plaint A and B schedule properties with the first defendant is not in dispute and the fact that the respondent herein was attempting to claim an interest or right over the suit schedule properties was tacitly admitted by the first revision petitioner by filing a caveat before the trial Court in respect of the properties. Apart from every other thing, the counter affidavit of the first revision petitioner before the trial Court in the petition for interim injunction admitted the signatures of the first revision petitioner in the Rental Agreement, dated 14.11.2008, while disputing the circumstances under which such signatures were made. The counter affidavit also specifically referred to the caveat petition filed by the first revision petitioner claiming ownership of the shops. The non-mention of the shop numbers in the rental deed or loan document are details to be probed into during the trial of the suit, but in claiming that the respondent herein is a wrong doer in respect of the suit properties running a medical shop and clinic in the suit schedule properties, the possession of the respondent herein is ex facie admitted. Whether he is qualified to practise as a registered Medical Practioner and has a drug licence to run a medical shop are not questions germane for this enquiry and when the first revision petitioner herein specifically alleged the possession of the respondent herein over the suit shops to be illegal and unauthorized and further alleged that if interim injunction is granted, the respondent herein will remain in the suit shop for ever as the rental deed is for an unlimited period, the possession and enjoyment of the suit shops by the respondent herein by the date of the suit is expressly admitted. When the first revision petitioner expressed apprehensions about being prevented from taking legal steps for his eviction in case of an interim injunction, the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as on the date of the suit could not have been doubted in any manner and if certain factual conclusions become inevitable on the pleadings of the parties, there may not have been any need for the Courts below to look into or require any oral or documentary evidence on these aspects. 10. When the respondent herein claims to be the tenant of the properties and the trial and the Appellate Courts found a reasonable basis for such a claim to be not absent, the tenant is definitely entitled to protection of possession even against the landlord until lawfully evicted and, therefore, the injunction granted cannot be interfered with. However, if it is made clear that the interim injunction granted herein will not, in any manner, disable the first revision petitioner from pursuing any legal remedies available to her under law for eviction of the respondent herein from the suit schedule properties, the same will sufficiently safeguard her rights. 11. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs, but it is made clear that the interim injunction granted in I.A.No.708 of 2010 in O.S.No.154 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, dated 30.10.2010, and confirmed in C.M.A.No.32 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional District Judge’s Court (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, dated 06.06.2011, will not, in any manner, prevent or disable the first revision petitioner/the first defendant in the suit from pursuing remedies available to her under law to evict the respondent herein/the plaintiff in the suit from the suit schedule properties in accordance with law. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 1st November, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3243 of 2011 Date: 1st November, 2011 KL