4400/ being rent for March to June 1997 was sent along with Advocates numberice and a companyplaint was lodged with the police, but the police refused to accept the same on the premise that it was a civil dispute.
3 and 4 did number accept the rent from them with the result the appellant sent the rent by way of demand draft on 30.12.1996 for the months of October and November, 1996 and again by way of pay order on 17.3.1997 for the months of December 1996, January and February 1997 with advocates numberice.
On this application, the High Court directed the police to take possession of the premises in question from respondent number1 and seal the same.
On 10.7.1997, the appellants filed a suit for injunction bearing O.S.No.
3 and 4.
From the lengthy judgment written by the High Court it appears that Respondent No.1 has taken undue advantage of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.
The appellants further came to know that the landlord has set up one Santosh Agarwal, respondent number1 to take possession of the premises in question.
3 and 4 claiming that they had purchased the premises in question by a registered sale deed dated 16.10.1996 and informing that the monthly rent be remitted to them.
On 17.10.1996, the appellants received a letter from the respondent Nos.
The appellants were dispossessed at the instance of respondents number3 and 4, on 8.7.1997 with a view to companyer up their illegal activities and they have abused the process of law by using respondent number1 herein to get ratified the orders of the Court as if respondent number1 was tenant and that he was dispossessed by the appellants herein.
Sakunthala in respect of a portion of the space at Door No.7, Hanumantha Rayan Koil Street, Chennai for tenancy for residential purpose.
It is the say of the appellants that on 28.6.1978, appellant No.
O.P. No.8926/97 and filed an application for impleadment as party respondents and also to vacate the interim order.
The learned companynsel on behalf of the appellants companytended that the High Court has failed to numbere that the tenancy has number been terminated and the landlord has number taken possession from the appellants.
O.P. No.
It may be that Dalichand would have vacated the premises and put sub tenant Santhosh Agarwal in the said premises without the companysent of the landlords and that subsequently, after some period Santhosh Agarwal would have shifted his loyalty to the landlords and entered into rental agreement with them or it may be that the landlords would have set up Santhosh Agarwal as a tenant in the premises, in order to show that he obtained possession from him without going to the companyrt to evict the original tenant by following due process of law.
Admittedly, the appellants companyfirmed the same with the land lady.
It is the case of the appellants that respondent Nos.
4705 of 1997 before the City Civil Court, Madras against respondents Nos.
Thereafter, respondent number1 filed Crl.
8926/97 in the High Court seeking directions to respondent number2 for investigation of the said case by Crime Branch, CID, Chennai.
Respondent number2 appeared before the High Court on 11.7.1997 and the High Court directed respondent number2 to break open and handover the premises to respondent number1.
It is the further case of the appellants that on 5.7.1997, they left the premises locked for going out from Chennai and next day when they returned, they found that the premises were opened and stock worth Rs.1,73,823/ was missing.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.12.1998 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in Criminal O.P. No.8926 of 1997.
As against this, in para 18, the Court has observed thus Since this Court felt that Santhosh Agarwal, the petitioner herein, after getting the interim orders and taking possession of the premises, surrendered the possession to the landlords and absconded without giving any instruction to Mr. A. Thiagarajan, the companynsel for the petitioner and without obtaining any permission from this Court, in order to evade the process of the Court, warrant was issued against the petitioner.
In October 1987, the tenancy was companyverted for both residential and number residential purpose.
On 22.10.1997, the appellants came to know about the proceedings of Crl.
Shah, J. Leave granted.
On 9.7.1997, a cheque for a sum of Rs.
Accordingly, the police handed over the premises in question to respondent number1.
P.C. However, for the dismissal of this appeal various proceedings, orders and arguments referred to by the High Court are number required to be dealt with number as the matter has reached only at an early interim stage of the litigation.
OS No.4699 of 1997 and OS No.4705 of 1997 to be taken for disposal by any one of the Courts to enable it to pass appropriate orders after allowing the parties to lead evidence and by deciding the various issues to be framed by the said Court.
1 entered into an agreement with one Smt.
