This revision challenges the vacation of a status quo order. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of settled possession due to lack of documentary evidence, dismissing the petition.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5355 OF 2009.
DATED:09-03-2010.
Between:
K.Anjaneyulu
… Petitioner
and
The Commissioner, Jagtial Municipality, Jagtial, Karimnagar District.
…Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5355 OF 2009.
ORDER:
This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 08-10-2009, in I. A. No. 254 of 2009 in O.S.No.54 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, wherein the status quo order granted on 19-06-2009 was vacated.
2. The petitioner herein is the tenant in respect of shop at Vegetable market, Jagtial for the last 15 years and the petitioner was permitted to continue as tenant under oral lease for every 11 months by paying necessary rent. The oral lease for a period of 11 months commencing from 01-04-2009 to 01-03-2010.
3. Grant or refusal of injunction is guided by three well established principles viz., 1) If the plaintiff has made out a prima
facie case, 2) If the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., it would be greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the defendant would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and 3) If the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury. Among the three ingredients, the first ingredient is sine quo non for grant of temporary injunction. If the first ingredient is not proved in spite of two other ingredients are proved, the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. The petitioner claims that he is a tenant in respect of the shop in pursuance of a written lease for a period of one year and thereafter, he is continuing in possession of the property by virtue of an oral lease.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not in illegal occupation of the premises and therefore, he cannot be evicted except in accordance with law.
5. No doubt, to some extent his contention may be correct. In view of the fact that when a person is in settled possession of the property for a long time, he cannot be evicted except through process of Court. The petitioner has not filed any proof to show that he has been in settled possession of the property since a long time except filing two receipts said to have been issued by the Municipality to show that he paid rents prior to filing of the suit. Prima facie case has not been established to show his right to continue in possession of the property except his oral assertions. When the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in settled possession of the property by paying necessary rents, he should have filed documentary evidence to show that he is paying rents and the same had been accepted by the concerned authority recognizing him as a tenant in occupancy. Therefore, there are no triable issues insofar as prima facie case is concerned. Hence, there are no grounds to allow the revision.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
K.C.BHANU, J
DATED:09-03-2010 Hsd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner established a prima facie case of settled possession to continue occupancy of the shop.
Whether sufficient documentary evidence proving tenancy exists to warrant quashing the impugned order.
K.Anjaneyulu
The Commissioner, Jagtial Municipality
K.C.Bhanu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
