Civil revision challenging the dismissal of an application for deposit of rent and striking off defence. The High Court upheld the lower court's view that deposit of rent cannot be ordered when a bona fide dispute regarding ownership is pending against the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2418 of 2014
DATED: 22.08.2014
Between: Smt. Bumi Reddy Pranitha and another .. Petitioners and M/s. CITU, Union Office, Rep. by M. Narasimha Reddy .. Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. G.L. Narasimha Rao
This Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 28.04.2014 in I.A.No.127 of 2014 in O.S.No.366 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
I have heard Mr. G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record.
The petitioners have filed the above-mentioned suit for eviction of the respondent and also for damages. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that they have purchased the suit schedule property from the original owner by name N. Madhusudhan Reddy through his purported G.P.A. The said Madhusudhan Reddy has filed O.S.No.1072 of 2012 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for declaration that the G.P.A. executed by him is null and void and consequently the sale deed executed by the G.P.A. in favour of the petitioners is also null and void. While the said suit is pending, the petitioners have filed the present suit for eviction of the respondent and for damages and they have also filed I.A.No.127 of 2014 under Order XVA of C.P.C. for a direction to the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent and also to deposit the future monthly rents at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month pending the suit and in default to strike off the defence of the respondent in the suit. The respondent filed a written statement in the suit and also a counter-affidavit to the I.A., wherein it has taken a stand that as there is a bona fide dispute
between the petitioners on one side and Mr. N. Madhusudhan Reddy, who was having ownership of the property, on the other side and that as it was inducted by the said Madhusudhan Reddy, it is continuing to pay the rent to the said Madhusudhan Reddy. The lower Court dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioners on the ground that when there is a dispute on the jural relationship between the petitioners and the respondent as landlord and tenant, no direction for deposit of rent can be granted.
In my opinion, as the suit filed by Mr. Madhusudhan Reddy, the original owner of the property, questioning the very sale deed itself is pending, the respondent cannot be forced to deposit the rents in the Court; more so, when the petitioners have not impleaded the said Madhusudhan Reddy as a party to the suit, any direction that may be given to the respondent to deposit the rent would affect the interests of the said Madhusudhan Reddy. For the reasons best known to the petitioners, they have not impleaded the said Madhusudhan Reddy in the suit.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order of the lower Court.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.3385 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
_____________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
22nd August, 2014 IBL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a direction to deposit rent can be granted when there is a bona fide dispute between the alleged landlord and the original owner mentioned in a pending declaration suit.
Whether failure to implead the original owner affects the tenant's liability to deposit rent in the hands of the Court.
Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the application for deposit of rent and striking off defence in the presence of a pending suit questioning the sale deed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Bumi Reddy Pranitha
M/s. CITU
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
