HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.2537 of 2014 Between:
Smt.Mosia Padmavathi And Mosia Tirupathi Rao … Petitioner … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.2537 of 2014 ORDER:
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18.06.2014 passed in I.A. No.113 of 2010 in O.P. No.116 of 2009 by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam.
I.A. No.113 of 2010 in O.P. No.116 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with 151 CPC seeking to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 from evicting the petitioner from the petition schedule property i.e. Quarter No.B-8/7, 1st Floor of the Staff Quarters, Hindustan Shipyard Staff Quarters, Gandhigram Post, Visakhapatnam.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the 1st respondent are the wife and the husband, respectively blessed with a son.
The petitioner, being wife of the 1st respondent staying in the premises in question. The 1st respondent filed O.P. No.116 of 2009 seeking divorce against the petitioner. She lodged a complaint before SHO, Malkapuram and also Administrative Officer (Quarters), Shipyard, requesting to continue her in the petition schedule property as she is legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent. But, the staff of the 2nd respondent, in collusion with the 1st respondent, tried to evict the petitioner from the petition schedule property. Hence, the application was filed.
Denying the averments of the petitioner, 1st respondent filed counter stating that he vacated the premises in question in the month of July, 2009 and the petitioner is un-authorisedly continuing in the said premises. Due to unauthorised occupation of the premises in question by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent authorities deducting an amount of Rs.2,720/- per month from his salary. She has no right to continue in the premises in question.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the death of the first wife of the 1st respondent, the petitioner married with the 1st respondent and blessed with a son, who is studying Intermediate. During the years 2008-09 the 1st respondent developed illegal intimacy with one lady and brought her to the quarters allotted by the 2nd respondent for which, disputes arose between them. Eventually, the 1st respondent left the petitioner in the quarter and gone out and intimated the 2nd respondent authorities that he vacated the premises in question. Due to the pressures of respondents 1 and 2 to vacate the premises in question, she filed I.A. No.113 of 2010 seeking to grant temporary injunction against the respondents from evicting her from the quarters. It is also submitted that initially, temporary injunction was granted and later on dismissed erroneously on the premise that the 1st respondent is not residing at the premises in question and therefore, the petitioner has no right to continue in the said premises. He further submitted that so long as the marital relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent is subsisting, for the purpose of stay in the quarters, she cannot be treated as unauthorised person. Hence, dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner vide impugned order is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, caveator, submitted that he addressed many letters to the 2nd respondent authorities that he vacated the premises in question and to handover physical possession of the same and not to deduct amount from his salary. Even in spite of many representations to the effect that he vacated the premises in question; the 2nd respondent authorities are continuing deduction from his salary towards quarter occupied illegally by the petitioner. This dispute had already been properly resolved by the Court below vide impugned order and therefore, no interference of this Court is required and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the material on record.
It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent being Government of India’s employee he was allotted quarter in question wherein the petitioner and the 1st respondent used to stay together for some time. Due to personal disputes between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent vacated the premises in question but the petitioner is continuing to live in the said premises for which, amount is deducting from his salary. Based on the intimation given by the 1st respondent to the effect that he vacated the quarter in question, the 2nd respondent authorities issued notice to the petitioner to vacate the quarter. Instead of vacating the quarter, the petitioner filed an application before the Court below that was dismissed with an observation that the 2nd respondent is at liberty to initiate the eviction proceedings against the petitioner as per the provisions of Act 40 of 1941 and she shall be evicted by following due procedure of law.
It is pertinent to note here that personal disputes narrated by the petitioner are nothing to do with the 2nd respondent authorities and when the 1st respondent categorically averred that he vacated the quarter in question, invariably the petitioner is also liable to vacate the same.
If at all, the petitioner is having any personal grievance against the 1st respondent she can take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, to resolve the same.
Eventually, since the learned counsel for the petitioner agreed to vacate the premises in question provided, the petitioner is given reasonable time for a period of six months for which, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that one month time is sufficient to vacate the quarter in question, I am of the view that two months time is sufficient to vacate the quarter in question.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the 1st respondent, this revision petition is disposed of granting two months time to vacate the premises in question by the petitioner, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 05.09.2014
LSK