ORDER
The Court
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 24-5-1999 passed in M.A. No. 1 of 1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanjangud, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 5-1-1999 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nanjangud, in O.S. No. 76 of 1998 allowing I.A. No. VI filed by the respondent under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.
2. The petitioner is a State Road Transport Corporation. It is engaged in providing efficient and inexpensive transport services to the people. As part of its services, it provides retiring rooms for commuters at the Nanjangud Bus Stand, In this connection, it licensed the respondent to be in charge of maintaining and running these rooms on a monthly licence fee of Rs. 1,300/- for a period of three years effective from 10-5-1993. This was extended by additional two years. Thus the licence period expired by 9-5-1998.
3. However, during March 1995 the licensee was requested to co-operate with the Corporation in its efforts to effect necessary repairs to the rooms. The Corporation, according to the petitioner, which was always in lawful possession of these rooms began a course of repairs. At this juncture, the respondent filed W.P. No. 19799 of 1996 before this Court for an action for redelivery of the rooms. It was dismissed. As such, the respondent filed O.S. No. 76 of 1998. Inter alia, he maintained I.A. No. VI for the mandatory injunction for opening the lock of the rooms and restoration of the same. The Court in the first instance, directed status quo to be maintained for a while and on every date of hearing, the status quo order was extended. The case was posted on 8-10-1998. On that date, the Advocate for the respondent was attending the case in another Court. As such, he could not be present in time. The status quo order was not extended. Taking the advantage of this order, the petitioner took up the possession of the property, in all, there arc six rooms. In the first instalment, room Nos. 1 and 2 were given and in the second instalment on 12-10-1998, room Nos. 3 to 6 were given. The case was advanced and ultimately, both the Courts have held that the petitioner has resorted to illegal means in order to take possession of the rooms.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Govindaraj submitted that the Corporation has taken possession of the rooms and they are in its possession for the last three years and by virtue of the orders of the Court below, the Corporation would be put to greater hardship and irreparable loss. The learned Counsel for the respondent, Sri B. Sreeni-vasa Gowda submitted that there is a concurrent finding and as such, there should be no interference, since no question of law has arisen. Another submission is that even assuming that the petitioner has got any right, it is only under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), in which a notice has to be given to the respondent. The petitioner has to take recourse to law as per the Act. The number of decisions have been cited by both the sides.
5. At the very outset, it has to be seen that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) has passed an order in favour of the respondent and the same has been confirmed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), As such, there is a concurrent finding. For a moment, if it is thought that what would happen if a suit was not filed by the respondent. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, there was no option for the petitioner otherwise than taking recourse under the Act. In this case also, the same procedure has to be adopted. Since there is still a remedy open for the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding.
6. Therefore, the following order:
7. In the result, the civil revision petition stands dismissed.