THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2645, 2646, 2647 AND 2650 OF 2014 Dated:05-09-2014
Between:
Badrinarayan Bohra and eight others ... PETITIONERS AND Dr. Chandra Prakash Jain and five others .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2645, 2646, 2647 AND 2650 OF 2014
COMMON ORDER:
In all these revisions, the facts are similar and the parties are common. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.
The respondents are owners of non-residential premises at Maharajgunj, Hyderabad and the petitioners are tenants thereof. The respondents filed R.C Nos. 237, 238, 242 and 243 of 2000 before the II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad for eviction, by pleading various grounds. The RCs were allowed and orders of eviction were passed on 25-10-2005. The petitioners filed R.A Nos.267, 268, 269 and 270 of 2005 in the Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad against the orders of eviction. During the pendency of the appeals, the parties entered into a compromise whereunder the petitioners agreed to vacate the premises by 31-07-2011. Since the petitioners did not vacate the premises E.P Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 of 2011 were filed. It was pleaded that the petitioners did not honour their commitment under the compromise decree and failed to vacate the premises. The E.Ps were opposed by the petitioners by raising certain grounds. According to them, the 3rd judgment debtor died and his legal representatives were not brought on record. They have also made a reference to O.S No. 457 of 2010 filed in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in relation to the premises. The executing Court allowed all the EPs through separate but similar orders. Hence, these revisions.
Heard Sri Mulari Narayan Bung, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Promod Kumar Kedia, learned counsel for the respondents.
The revisions are totally misconceived. It is with the participation of the petitioners, that a compromise decree was passed way back in the year 2011 in the appeals preferred by them. It was basic on the part of the petitioners to honour the compromise decree to which they are parties. The mere fact that a suit is pending in relation to the properties does not change the circumstances in favour of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners made a request that reasonable time be granted to his clients for vacating the premises. This request is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the C.R.Ps are dismissed by granting time till the end of October, 2014 for the petitioners to vacate the premises. If they fail to vacate the premises, the order passed in the E.Ps shall be enforced against them, without the necessity of obtaining any further orders from the executing Court.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 05-09-2014 ks