Dismissed

Mr. Mohammed Mushtaq Ahmed v. Mrs. Sajidunnisa

Telangana HC27 Nov 2015CRP/5174/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a tenant's civil revision petition challenging an order directing payment of rent arrears from July 2014 to September 2015. The High Court found the tenant's claim of non-possession inconsistent with his counter-affidavit admitting possession and repairs, concluding the lower court correctly directed rent payment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay arrears of rent due from July 2014 to September 2015 and future rents; civil revision petition dismissed.

Mr. Mohammed Mushtaq Ahmed Vs Mrs. Sajidunnisa — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5174 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This civil revision petition is filed by the tenant, who is the respondent in R.C.No.118 of 2015, aggrieved by order, dated 15.10.2015, passed by the III-Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.191 of 2015 in the said R.C.

¶5

As the petitioner/tenant was not paying rents, respondent has filed interlocutory application in I.A.No.191 of 2015, to direct the tenant to pay the rent regularly and also the arrears of rent. Such application is allowed by impugned order, directing the petitioner herein to pay the arrears of rent which are due from July 2014 to September 2015 at the rate of Rs.2,200/- per month, within three months from the date of said order, with a further direction to pay rents for the subsequent months at the rate of Rs.2,200/- per month from October 2015 onwards on or before 7^th of succeeding month.

¶6

Heard both sides.

¶7

Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent is not allowing him to enjoy the premises by creating obstructions, as such, there is no obligation to pay the rents. Precisely, it is stated that as he is not enjoying the premises, he need not pay the rents. But, curiously, in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner herein in I.A.No.191 of 2015, it is stated that he has invested Rs.4 lakhs for repairs and renovation of the mulgi with the permission of landlord i.e. respondent herein and that he was in possession of the mulgi. Such stand of the petitioner herein, in the counter affidavit filed before the trial Court, runs contrary to the argument now advanced.

¶8

As it is not in dispute that the petitioner is tenant and as there is no proof for payment of arrears of rent, this Court is of the view that

¶9

the Court below has rightly issued directions to pay the arrears of rent as well as future rents, and there is no ground to interfere with such findings.

¶10

This civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶11

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶13

27^th November 2015 ajr

Mr. Mohammed Mushtaq Ahmed v. Mrs. Sajidunnisa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mohammed Mushtaq Ahmed v. Mrs. Sajidunnisa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamia Nizamia, Vs Dairatul Maarifil Osmania

Smt. C. Rajyalaxmi, Vs M/s. Marvin Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Hassan Bin Salam Vs Smt. B. Vijayalaxmi

Anusha C Pawar Vs Shivaji Rathod

B. Poornachandra Reddy, Vs Sri Ramgopal

Dr G v S M K Appaji Vs M anjaneyulu