Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 552 (AP)

Syed Hussain v. Dilshad Begum

2020-09-02

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT R.Raghunandan Rao, J. - The appellant herein had filed O.S.No.534 of 2015 in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa seeking an injunction restraining the respondents herein from dispossessing him from the suit schedule property on the ground that he was a tenant of the respondents herein and they were seeking to dispossess him. 2. The respondents herein had filed written statement stating that the property initially had been leased out to the brother of the appellant and upon his demise in 1997, the appellant was permitted to continue as a tenant. The respondents herein further stated that they had only requested the appellant to vacate the premises as the suit schedule property had become dilapidated and was on the verge of collapse. It is the further case of the respondents that they had requested the appellant herein to vacate the premises as they wish to demolish the said building and rebuild on the site. 3. The learned Trial Judge after hearing both sides was pleased to dismiss the suit. Thereafter, the appellant had filed A.S.No.5 of 2017 in the Court of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa which also stood dismissed on 29.09.2019. 4. The claim of the appellant that he had advanced certain sums of money to the respondents has been negatived by both the Courts below and I do not find any reason to interfere with that finding. 5. However, the question of dismissal of the suit on the ground that the respondents had not sought any forcible eviction and that the appellant was not entitled for an equitable relief or issues would remain for consideration. 6. Having heard both Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondents, it could not serve any purpose of keeping the Second Appeal pending. 7. As it is the case of the respondents that they have not sought forcible eviction of the appellant herein, the appropriate order would have been to grant an injunction to the appellant against the respondents to the extent of injuncting the respondents from trying to forcibly evict the appellant from the suit schedule property. 8. In this view of the matter, the Second Appeal is disposed of injuncting the respondents herein from forcibly dispossessing the appellant from the suit schedule property. 8. In this view of the matter, the Second Appeal is disposed of injuncting the respondents herein from forcibly dispossessing the appellant from the suit schedule property. However, it shall be open to the respondents to take such steps as necessary to evict the appellant in accordance with law if that is required by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Second Appeal shall stand closed.