This revision dismissed an appeal against orders permitting recovery of rent and eviction where tenants failed to substantiate an alleged sale agreement or owner's authorization.
Revisions dismissed; miscellaneous petitions disposed of; no order as to costs.
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 L.NARASIMHA REDDY
C.R.P. Nos.4627 & 4630 of 2013
COMMON ORDER:
These two revisions are filed assailing the orders passed on an application of similar nature, as between the same parties.
The petitioners are tenants in respect of the two premises, that are owned by the son of the respondent herein. The respondent filed two suits, being O.S.Nos.362 and 363 of 2012,
on behalf of his son, in the Court of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioners, for eviction from the schedule properties, and for recovery of rents. He has also filed I.A.No.403 and 404 of 2012 in the respective suits, under Rule 1 of Order XV-A of C.P.C., with a prayer to require the petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent. The petitioners resisted the applications by raising objection as to the very maintainability of the suits. They have also taken the plea that there existed agreements of sale between them and the owner, for purchase of the suit properties. The trial Court allowed the applications through separate orders dated 11-09-2013. Hence, these two revisions.
Heard Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narsu, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioners did not dispute that they are the tenants of the suit premises. The first objection to the suits was, that the respondent, who is the father of the original owner, does not have proper authorisation. On the face of it, the plea was untenable. The
petitioners themselves stated that the owner is residing in a foreign country, and it is not known as to how a suit filed by the father of a person, who is living in a foreign country, is not maintainable. Secondly, the petitioners took a plea that there existed agreements of sale for the premises in their favour. The only basis for it is the socalled remittances, said to have been made by them to the account of the owner. Not a single paper, worth its name, was filed into the Court. The petitioners did not dispute the factum of non-payment of rent for the period in question.
The revisions are devoid of merits, and they are accordingly dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in the C.R.Ps., shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Dt.13-10-2014
KO
Petitioners/Tenants
Respondent/Father of Owner
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
