IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1751 and 1759 of 2011 CRP.No.1751 of 2011 BETWEEN A. Mahesh Reddy ... PETITIONER AND Sri Shiridi Sai Seva Samsthan. ...RESPONDENT CRP.No.1759 of 2011 BETWEEN Y. Chandra Shekhar ... PETITIONER AND Sri Shiridi Sai Seva Samsthan. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. C. KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: MR. N. RANGA REDDY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are filed by two different tenants/plaintiffs, against the same landlord/defendant, against different orders of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, passed in C.M.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 dated 10.03.2011. 2. The petitioners/tenants filed suits being O.S.Nos.122 and 123 of 2010 seeking perpetual injunction wherein temporary injunction was granted to the petitioners/tenants. Since all the facts are identical, it would be suffice if we note the facts in CRP.No.1751 of 2011. 3. The petitioner in CRP.No.1751 of 2011 filed the suit O.S.No.123 of 2010 before the Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan, for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with the enjoyment and possession of shop No.2 located in the premises of the respondent/defendant, as described in the plaint schedule. In the plaint, he pleaded that he is a tenant paying monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and that the lease was renewed from time to time orally and now it is renewed for a period of five years up to 2015. Alleging that the respondent/landlord is trying to physically dispossess him, he filed the present suit for injunction. An application for temporary injunction was also moved and by order of the trial Court dated 06.12.2010, the said I.A.No.346 of 2010 was allowed after hearing both sides. The lower appellate Court in C.M.A.No.1 of 2011 has now reversed the order of the trial Court under the impugned order dated 10.03.2011. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/tenants are before this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The lower appellate Court proceeded to think that the oral lease, as pleaded by the petitioners, cannot be taken note of and it was not satisfied that the tenancy of the petitioners is at sufferance. The lower appellate Court, thereafter, was not satisfied with prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners/tenants have not produced the evidence of payment of rent regularly, coupled with their plea of oral lease up to 2015. The lower appellate Court, however, lost sight of the fact that even according to the respondent/defendant one of the contentions is that the petitioners are not paying the rent of the lease hold premises regularly every month. Such a claim on behalf of the respondent presupposes that the petitioners are tenants; otherwise the question of seeking rent from them would not arise. Whether the tenancy pleaded by the petitioners is legally valid or not is besides the point that the petitioners are in lawful possession as tenants on payment of rent. If the petitioners are not paying the rents to the respondent, it is for the respondent to take appropriate legal proceedings in that regard and in any case, since the petitioners are in possession and carrying on business in the plaint schedule premises, they cannot be physically interfered with or dispossessed without recourse to the remedies available under law. 6. The trial Court had rightly granted injunction in favour of the petitioners and the lower appellate Court has erroneously reversed the same. I am, therefore, inclined to set aside the impugned orders and restore the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.345 of 2010 in O.S.No.122 of 2010 and I.A.No.346 2010 in O.S.No.123 of 2010. The civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed. The trial Court shall, however, endeavour to dispose of the suits as they are only suits for permanent injunction. The respondent is also at liberty to resort to such legal proceedings as are available under law by approaching the competent Court of law for recovery of alleged arrears of rent or any other relief(s), if any. There shall be no order of costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 30, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in three days. (B/o) DSK