http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  511 of 2008

PETITIONER: Bansilal Yadav Etc.

RESPONDENT: Suraj Chand Bhagat Etc.                                     

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/01/2008

BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT                  O R D E R (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 774 of 2007)

1.      Leave granted.   2.      Heard learned counsel for the parties.   3.      In our view, there is no need to interfere with the order  impugned in this appeal, which has been filed by the  landlords-appellants against the impugned order passed by  the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil  Revision Petition Nos. 4953-4956, 4960, 4973-76 of 2006.  It  is an admitted position that an ex-parte order of eviction was  passed against the tenants-respondents relating to the  premises in question on 16th of February, 2004 and the  tenants-respondents were directed to vacate the premises in  question within one month from the aforesaid date.   Subsequently, on 5th of April, 2004, possession of the  premises in question was handed over to the present  landlords-appellants.  As the possession of the premises in  question was taken over by the landlords-appellants, the  tenants-respondents filed applications being IA No. 161 of  2004 in R. C. No. 4 of 2004, IA No. 163 of 2004 in R. C. No. 5  of 2004 and IA No. 164 of 2004 in R. C. No. 6 of 2004 praying  for an order of injunction restraining the appellants herein from  demolishing, changing or altering the structure of the  premises in question.  The respondents also filed the  application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for  condonation of delay of 76 days in filing the application for  setting aside the ex-parte orders of eviction.  Initially, the  Additional Rent Controller dismissed the applications and  refused to set aside the ex-parte orders of eviction.   4.      Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed appeals  before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court had set  aside the ex-parte orders of eviction and restored the eviction  proceedings.   5.      Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed Civil Revision  Petitions before the High Court, which were dismissed by the  impugned order, which is now under challenge before us.   6.      While deciding the Civil Revision cases, the High  court made the following observations in the impugned order  :- \02323.  In view of the aforesaid facts and  circumstances, I am of the opinion that the  tenants are entitled for the restoration of  possession.  It is stated that the applications  filed by the tenants for restoration of possession  are pending.  The tenants ought to have filed a  simple application straightway under Rule 8 (3)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

of the Rules for restoration of possession.  The  Rent Controller without properly appreciating the  evidence on record erroneously dismissed the  applications without any justification.   24. Having regard to the facts and  circumstances of the case and now that the ex- parte orders have been set aside and \023the  eviction petitions have been restored, on the  applications filed or to be filed by the tenants  under Rule 8 (3) of the Rules, the possession  also shall be restored in favour of the tenants.\024  In view of the above, I do not see any illegality or  irregularity or impropriety in the orders under the  revisions.\024            

7.      On behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel  raised a very simple submission.  He submitted that the  High Court in para 24 of the impugned order, as quoted  hereinabove, observed that since the eviction petitions  were restored on the applications filed by the tenants- respondents, it would be open to the tenants-respondents  to get possession restored in their favour or restoration  could be given on the applications to be filed by the  tenants-respondents under Rule 8 (3) of the Rules.   Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the  observations made in para 24, in the manner indicated  above, must be deleted.  The learned counsel appearing  for the tenants-respondents, however, has submitted that  they have no objection, if this portion of the order is  deleted.   8.      That being the stand taken by the parties, we delete  the observations made by the High Court, as quoted  hereinabove, in its order in para 24 to the above extent :-   \023the eviction petitions have been restored, on  the applications filed or to be filed by the tenants  under Rule 8 (3) of the Rules, the possession  also shall be restored in favour of the tenants.\024

9.      The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed subject to  the above modification.  There will be no order as to costs.   Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.