Decided on August 22,1972



- (1.) Third defendant in the suit, is the petitioner in all these revision petitions. It is necessary, to state a few facts in order to appreciate the points arising in these three revisions.
(2.) First respondent in these Civil Revision Petitions filed O. S. 282 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court. Vijayawada, originally against respondents 2 and 3 herein, for a permanent injunction restraining the first respondent, her men, employees nominees and supporters from interfering with the oil business of the plaintiff and also with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property and for costs.
(3.) As per allegations in the plaint, the previous lease in favour of the plaintiff granted by smt. Lakshmi Durgamba expired by 28-1-1969, that the defendants became purchasers from the original lessor in 1963, that on account of some negotiation the plaintiff was permitted to continue as the lessee with an offer to renew the lease in their favour for a further period of five years commencing from 1-3-1970, that the plaintiff also sent some amount towards lease amount but to the surprise of the plaintiff they received a registered notice dated 1-10-1970 from the defendants counsel asking them to vacate the suit premises, that the plaintiff gave a reply on 5-10-1970 denying the allegations in that notice for which there was a subsequent notice by the defendants 1 and 2 dated 16-10-1970 repeating their demand for vacating the suit premises, that the conduct of the parties clearly shows that the first defendant has been acting on behalf of the owners and the second defendant also was confirming the agreement through out, that the defendants 1 and 2 ultimately should see that a formal lease deed be executed by all the three owners that the second defendant has been the plaintiffs dealer since several years, that the defendants have no right to interfere with the plaintiffs possession of the suit premises or with the fixtures and the equipment therein, as they are bound by the agreement entered into on 6-7-1970 that with an ulterior motive the defendants have taken into their heads to cause trouble to the plaintiff and they are taking the law in their own hands and attempting to dismantle and remove the costly fixtures and equipment by force and high handely, that on 22-10-1970 the second dependent at the instigation of the first dependent along with some other unruly elements came to the suit schedule premises and attempted to dismantle the equipment shown in list filed along with the plaint, in spite of the protests of the plaintiffs representative, that the plaintiffs representatives were pushed aside when he attempted to prevent their trespass into the plaint schedule property and infact they overpowered him and meddled with the fixtures and equipment by using force, that they are now attempting to install some other equipment in the suit site by force, that the plaintiff had given a report to the police the previous day, but the defendants are declaring that they would forcibly take possession of the suit schedule premises and dismantle everything by force etc.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.