- (1.) THIS revision petition has a chequred history. Parties have already been upto the Supreme Court at least on two earlier occasions This is the third round only against the interlocutory order passed in the suit, It is, however, not considered necessary to state facts in detail Suffice it to say that plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction in the year 1988 alleging 1 tenancy under the defendant at Rs. 5000/- per month with effect from July 30, 1988 and thereby praying that the defendant be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs forcibly. It was also pleaded that Rs. 70,000/- was paid as advance rent. The defendant, however, by way of counter claim pleaded oral agreement to sell and that Rs. 70,000/- were paid as advance under the agreement which amount stood forfeited. The allegation of tenancy and the payment of advance rent by the plaintiffs to the defendant was denied.
(2.) SH. R. S. Raghav, Advocate was appointed as a receiver. Receiver finally got possession of the property in the middle of May, 1991 in view of the directions issued by this Court while deciding civil revision No. 3401 of 1990 on May 7, 1991. A couple of days later, petitioner filed a review application in the civil revision, agreeing therein to become a lessee at Rs. 15,000/- per month but the same was dismissed. In S. L. P. taken against the orders dismissing the revision petition and the review application, the Apex Court passed the following order : "heard counsel on both sides. The special leave petitions are dismissed However, the dismissal of these special leave petitions shall not come in the way of the petitioners moving the trial Court for appropriate directions to the receiver as to the management of the property to the best advantage of all the parties. If any proposal is submitted by the petitioners, the same will be considered by the trial Court. We may point out that as long as the Receiver is functionary, the power of the Court to issue directions from time to time for an efficient and productive management of the property to best advantage of the parties is not exhausted. "
(3.) PLAINTIFFS thereafter, in view of the order of the Supreme Court, moved an application dated August 5, 1991 praying that the Court may fix a reasonable amount by way of lease money/licence fee and direct the receiver to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs till the disposal of the suit. The application was opposed The trial Court accepted this application and ordered the leasing out of the plot in dispute to the plaintiffs at Rs. 15,500/- per month till the decision of the above suit. It is this order of the trial Court which is now under challenge.;