HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4886 OF 2010 Dated: 29.10.2010 Between: Durgavarapu Sarveswara Rao. ..Petitioner And Korukonda Suryanarayana. .. Respondent. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4886 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, in C.M.A.No.5 of 2009, dated 7.4.2010. The petitioner herein is the landlord. The respondent is the tenant of the suit schedule shop room and he is running a business therein ever since 1989 under the name and style of Sri Venkateswara Photo Studio and Xerox and the present rent is Rs.1,500/- per month since January, 2008 and accordingly, he has been paying the rent till October, 2008 without any default. While so, in order to construct drainage on the north of the main road, the municipal authorities removed the pial of the shop room and the landlord promised that he would get it repaired and accordingly got constructed a pial. But, the landlord removed the door frame of the shop on 20.11.2008 and postponed the completion of work and finally addressed a letter dated 26.12.2008 calling upon the tenant to vacate the shop. Hence, the tenant filed the suit O.S.No.47 of 2009 seeking to grant permanent injunction. Pending the suit, the tenant filed I.A.No.109 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking to grant interim injunction restraining the landlord from ever interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the tenancy rights over the schedule shop room. The Court below having found that the report given by the tenant to the police discloses that the landlord came along with others at about 8 p.m., and evicted the tenant and started constructing the wall and a wall is already constructed and hence, the tenant is not in possession of the schedule property, dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant carried the matter in appeal by filing CMA No.5 of 2009. In the CMA, the lower appellate Court having observed that the tenant is in constructive possession of the schedule shop as a tenant and unless he is evicted under due process of law, his possession is required to be protected and therefore, he is entitled for temporary injunction from being dispossessed by force, allowed the CMA. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord filed the present revision. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the tenant that while constructing the pial, the landlord removed the doorframe and later he addressed a letter calling upon him to vacate the schedule shop. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the landlord addressed a letter stating that at the time of digging the drain canal by the municipality on 20.11.2008, the walls and roof of the shop are partially damaged and thus, the shop has become unfit for running any business and he wanted to reconstruct and run a business for himself and he does not want to let out to any one. The order impugned goes to show that third parties filed affidavits stating that the landlord had already constructed a wall in a night. Therefore, it can be said that the landlord wanted to evict the tenant from the schedule shop. But the landlord failed to establish before the Court below that the tenant has been evicted by following due process of law. Further, it is not the case of the landlord that the tenant surrendered his possession voluntarily to him. Apart from that, the question as to whether the tenant is entitled to continue in the schedule premises and he is entitled to seek permanent injunction against his landlord, is a matter to be decided after a full-fledged trial. But in view of the nature of the proceedings and in view of the foregoing discussion, I feel that the possession of the tenant has to be protected till the suit is decided or until and unless he is evicted under due process of law. Therefore, I feel that the order of the Court below does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to the costs. ________________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date: 29th October, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4886 OF 2010 29.10.2010