Dismissed

Shaik Abdul Sattar v. Mrs. Naseeb Khatoon

Telangana HC21 Apr 2023CRP/1095/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 challenging an order enhancing rent. The court held that despite service issues alleged, the petitioner had entered an appearance previously and the challenged order was reasonably well considered. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit and delay.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed with no costs.

Shaik Abdul Sattar Vs Mrs. Naseeb Khatoon — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1095 OF 2023

¶6

Petition filed under Article 227 ot the constitution of lndia, against the order dated 28-09-2021 passed in t.A.No. 49 of 2o2o in o.s.No. 232 of 2020 on the file of the ll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shaik Abdul Sattar. S/o Shaik Abdul Hafiz, Aged about 52 years, Occ. pgsiles_s, Rt/o. H.No.^ptot No- 6 B-abu Mil;r'a'#r;, Zaheerabad, Medak District Petitioner/Defendant No 1

¶9

...PETITIONERYDEFENDANT NO.1

¶10

AND

¶11

Mrs. Naseeb Khatoon Wo Mohammed lbrahim Khan, Aged about 72 vears. occ. Househo ta. nyo. H. r.to. ii :z,az.d i iiz,' iZJi' i,r'J' s, aanla ra Hirrs, Hyderabad

¶12

Mohammed lsmail Khan, S/o^Mo_hammed lbrahim Khan, aged about 52 vears. occ. Business, nyo. u. rq6.-e-z_irdJi;'C";1fto' li s"niaru Hils, Hyderi bad

¶13

Mohammed lshao Khar "[i?f.."?:td=,i]?,%!S,'&b:[:,U:i:IT,%1iif

¶14

Hef i,Talg3ft :ijHl,fl1

¶15

-[??S,.,?ffi 4. Mohammed Khavam ffi1l3g,H,T,l'S"Y;.]:l]ETl:#Ttr1T,,"',::;?ii::,Kl

¶16

uRL1,[x?l,x,oa:a:,.,^fl

¶17

¶18

5*:.siix1:2fl%"HrTr:"fi : jif B;,?,,?iBusiness,

¶19

Business,

¶20

'R1"1'E,ti[3??:,.Jf, i5#f sl,i"xi:2fl%jff#,fr1J3f, E;*",f;

¶21

';[i'[,:iil3'6.JHifl IA'f s,"?"1$:,2f,%%tffJ:fl,"J;iBf,,?iBusiness

¶22

...RESPONDENT Nos. S to 7/DEFENDANTS

¶23

¶24

l.A. No: 1OF 2023

¶25

Petition under Section 151 of CPC^prayingthat in^{the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filedⁱⁿ support of^{the petition,the High Court may be} pleased to grant stay of all further^{proceedings in} o.s.No.232^{ol 2020 on the file} of the ll Senior Civil Judge,^{City Civil Court,Hyderabad pending disposalof the} C.R.P., failing which the^{petitioners will suffer seriousloss and damage'}

¶26

Counsel for the^{Petitioner :M/S. MOHAMMED ZAHEERUDDIN}

¶27

Counsel for^{the Respondents: Noneappeared}

¶28

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶29

t \

¶30

¶31

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.^{NAVEEN RAO}

¶32

C.R.P. No.1095 of 2023

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Heard learned counse.l for petitioner.

¶35

Revision petitioner is defendaat no.¹ . This^{revision is} preferred challenging the order of the II Senior Civil Judge, City^Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 28.09.2021 in I A No. 49 of^{2O2O in O S No.} 232 of 2O2O allowing the application filed under Order 15-A read^with Section 15 I CPC d irecting the defendants to pay amount^of Rs.9,63,OO0/ - to$'ards arrears of rent of suit schedule propert-v for the period from Aprll,2O2O to August, 2O2O and to continue to pay the future rent at the ratc of Rs.1,92,000/- per month. Petitioner herein has not contested the said interlocutory application.

¶36

Learned counsel for petitioner sought to contend that summons were not served on petitioner, therefore he could not contest the matter and he should be given opportunitv to contest the application fiIed under Order 15-A read with Section 151 CPC.

¶37

From the cause title in I A No. 49 of 2O2O it is seen that all the four respondents/defendants are shown to be residing at same address i.e., at Plot No.6, Babu Mohan Colony, T,aheerabad, Medak District also at PNJ Mahfil Restaurant and Bakery and^premises bearing No. 6-3-883/9 known as Ibrahim Khan Estate,^{'situated at}

¶38

¶39

Punjagutta, Hyderabad. Whcn summons were se rvcd or-r defendants -I 2 to 4, who reside in the samc address as that of petitioner and when they entered their appearance, it cannot be said that petitioner was not served with summons and was not aware of the suit filed against all of them.

¶40

Even assuming u.hat is contended by the petitioner is true, according to iearned counsel for petitioner, petitioner has entered appearance in February, 2022 and thereafter also no steps were taken and petitioner kept. o.uiet lor more than one year and now, sought to file the present rcvision.

¶41

Be that as it may be, from thc reading of the order, it is seen that the order under revision is a well considered order Petitioner does not dispute that he is a tenant of the subject^premises and is only trying to contest the matter on merits. The legality and validity of the tenancy, is a matter for consideration by the trial Court. Further more, the trial Court^quantified the arrears of rents against all the defendants and only petitioner being one of the defendants, challenging the said order and others kept^quiet.

¶42

For the foregoing reasons, the revision fails and accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pc4dinc sta4d alosed.

¶43

To,

¶44

Sd/- MOHD ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C]D SECTION OFFICER

¶45

1 The ll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2 One CC to M/S. MOHAMMED ZAHEERUDDTN, Advocate [OPUC I 3. Two CD Copies .u-

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10412023

ORDER

i t\i: .--'.<br>,-l+
:)
; ..)
[ 1 llirY 2$13
,r

¶51

CRP.No.1095 of 2023

¶52

DISMISSING THE CIVIL

¶53

REVISION PETITION.

Shaik Abdul Sattar v. Mrs. Naseeb Khatoon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Abdul Sattar v. Mrs. Naseeb Khatoon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Surabhi Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Vs Smt. Deepa Lalchandani

D. Madhavi Devi Vs S.K.Srinivasa Raju

Sri Shaik Nawaz Vs Mohd Aleem

Pashikanti Rajendra Venkat, Vs NimmaMalla Reddy

Sri.Satyanarayana Challa ,Satish Challa Vs Smt.Sumana Sai Desai

Gottee Madhu Sudhan Vs Smt. G.RatnaKumari