Dismissed

Kamini Devi v. S. Hanumanth Reddy

Telangana HC27 Mar 2023CRP/1974/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court's order directing respondents to pay arrears of rent. The High Court held that the relationship between the landlord and the petitioner (as legal representative of the original tenant) was established by admissions in prior litigation where the tenant sought to implead the current petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Applications considered to stand closed.

Kamini Devi Vs S. Hanumanth Reddy — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1974 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kamini Devi, W/o Late S. Shiva KurnarOcc. Business, R/o H.No.13-3-29511. Kawvan Road, Puranapul, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETTTTONER(s)

¶9

AND

¶10

S. Hanumanth Reddy, S/o Late Vasudeva Reddy Aged 65 years, Occ. Business RJo 4-2-20, Attapur Village Rajendranagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

Rithikesh Jaiswal, S/o Late S. Shiva Kumar Aged 25 years, Occ. Business

¶12

Sri Sreenika, W/o Sri Pradeep Jaiswal D/o Late S. Shiva Kumar

¶13

Smt. Rushika, Wo Sri Srikanth Jaiswal D/o Late S. Shiva Kumar 2 to 4 are Rlo 4-2-20, Attapur Village Rajendranagar lvlandal Ranga Reddy District. (Respondent No.2 to 4 are not necessary parties to this Revision since they were set ex-parte in the trial court)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the present revision, thereby setting aside the Order daled 0810812022 in I.A.N0.373 o'f 2C21 in O.S.No.529 ol 2021 in the interest of^justice

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 15'l CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim suspension of the impugned order dated 08/06/2022 in 1.A.No.373 of 2022 in OS.No.529 of 2021 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar

¶18

I I

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI P SHIV KUMAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU CML REVISION PETITION No.1974 OF 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Being aggrieved by the Orders of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy (hereinafter will be referred as trial Courtl in I.A.No.373 of 2021 dated 08.06.2022, u,hereunder the trial Court allor,r,ed the petition filed b-v the respondent/ plaintiff, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia

¶25

One S.Hanumanth Reddy has filed O.S.No.529 of 2021 against (4) defendants before the trial Court for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. As per the schedule {iled along with plant, premises bearing No.4-6-69 lllT aL Attapur village has been shown as property involved in the suit. As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff has claimed that he has leased out the above premises to the husband of I't defendant namely S.Shiva Kumar for establishing hotel business. A lease deed was

¶26

¶27

ssRI" ", c.R.P.No.1974 oJ 2O22

¶28

executed and the said Shii'a l(umar cstablisl-red a hotel in tl're schedule propert-'. Initiall-r' thc rcnt u'as fixed as Rs.20,000/* per month and later it r.t,as enhanced as Rs.29,000/ - per month. Subsequentl-v. he has filed the suit vide O.S.No.54B of 2O 15 for perpetual ir.rjunction before expiry of lease period and failed to pay the agreed rent and in vierv ol injunction order in O.S.No.54B of 2015 he remained on the suit, property, but lailed to pay the rent. Therefore, the plaintiff got issueci iegal notrce under Section 1O6 of T.P.Act and demanded the tenant to vacate the premises. The defendants have avoidcd to receive the notice. Therefore, the plaintiff filed O.S.l.lo.529 of 2O2l for eviction of the respondents/ defendants

¶29

The petitioner/plaintiff has iiled I.A.No.373 of 2o2l under Order XV A C.P.C. r/w 151 CPC and sought for a direction to the respondents/ defendants for payment of arrears of rent.

¶30

The respondents/ defendants resistcd the^petition. TheSr have filed a memo requesting the trial Court to treat

¶31

¶32

SSR,Y, J c-R.P.No. t974 ol 2022

¶33

the u'ritten statement liled br, them in the suit as their counter in the above seid interlocutory application. As per the said written statement, it was alleged/claimed that respondents/defendants have never entered into any agreement u,ith the plaintiff. They never admitted the quantum of rent. There was no jural relationship between the respondent/ plaintifi. Therefore, they sought lor dismissal of the petition filed b1' the respondent/ plaintiff.

¶34

The trial Court having considered the above contentions and after hearing both parties, allowed the petition and directed the respondents/ defendants to pay arrears of rent. Feeling not happy with the said order, the petitioner/ l"t defendant in the above suit filed the present review petition on the following grounds:

¶35

The Order impugned in the revision is contrary to pleadings and erridence on record. The trial Court ought to have dismissed the interlocutory application^vide I.A.No.373 of 2O2l whereunder the^{respondent/plaintiff} sought for depositing rent in respect^{of the suit schedule} property. The trial Court committed an error by allowing

¶36

¶37

SSRff, J c-R.?.No.1974 oJ 2022

¶38

the interlocutory application and directing the rcspondents/ defendants to pa-1' airears of rent from July, 20 18 till date of the order (ri Rs.29,000 / - per month and also to p:iy future rent until further orders. The petitioner-s have claimed that the trial Court ought not tc have relied on Ex.Pl which is a copy of rental deed dated 01 .O7.2003, more particuiarly, when the petitioner denied jural relationship between the petitioner herein and respondent/ plaintiff. They have also claimed that the triai Court committed an error by reiying on Ex.P20 i.e., copv of plaint in O.S.No.S4B of 2O15. thereby holding that the petitioner herein is the tenant of the schedule property The petitioner has claimed that the trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that admittedly the respondent/plaintiff filed an eviction suit in O.S.No.165 of 2016, but withdrawn the same on the ground that there are mistakes in the said suit and they have filed another suit vide O.S.No.1595 of 2018 for eviction and mesne profit. But, the said suit was also not pressed on the ground of technical problem.

¶39

¶40

ssR,v. J c.R.P.No.l974 of 2022

¶41

I i

¶42

¶43

The petitioners have claimed that in the context of the above suits, the trial Cor-rrt failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent/ plaintifl intentionally rvithheld the copies of plaint in the above referred suits. BLlt, relied on the plaint in O.S.No.54B of 20 15 (Ex.P2O) which was liled by the husband of 1=' petitioner for perpetual injunction to justify the jural relationship in respect of the schedule propertJ,.

¶44

7 . The petitioner iurther claimed that the trial Cou-rt ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioner being wife of S. Shiva Kumar is not aware of the details of O.S.No. 165 of 2106 and O.S.No.1595 of 2018 said to have been filed by the respondent/plaintiff. However, subsequently she could be able to secure the papers in the suits. On perusal of the documents she has realized that O.S.No. 165 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy was {iled by the respondent against M/s.Golden Palace Restaurant represented by its partner S.Shiva Kr-rmar for the property bearing No.4-6-69 / 1/7 and O.S.No.1595 of 20i8 on the file of I Additional^SeniorCivil

¶45

¶46

.sSRN. J C.R.P.No.1974 of 2022

¶47

.Judge. Ranga Reddy '"vas filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the said S.Shiva Kumar in respect of premise bearirrg No.4'6 69 l1l7 admeasuring 4600 sq.feet. The petitioner carne to knor.r, that the wife of respondent,/ plain tiff b5, name Shamatrtaka filed another suit in O.S.No.7O7 of 2017 against the said Shiva Kumar and one S.Ratan Prakash seeking rendition of accounts and dissolution of the partnership. The said Shamantaka r hile filing the suit in O.S.No.707 of 2Ol7. categorically adrnilted t hat the said Golden Palace Restaurant is a partnership lirm and the said Golden Plaza Restaurant v"'as the tenzLnt of the property.

¶48

Therefore, the petitioner has claimed that the respondent/ plaintiff is gu ilty of suppression of the fact that the partnership firm is tenant in respect of the subject property and in spite of the other suits referred above filed petition for arrears of rent and suit for eviction. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have considered the said claim and ought to have dismissed the application.

¶49

SSRN, J c.R.P.No.1974 of 2022

¶50

¶51

The petitioner further claimed that as per the pleadings of 1st respondent/plaintiff in O.S.1.,1o.165 of 2016 and in O.S.No.1595 of 2Oi8 and also in O.S.No.707 of 2017, th.e partnership lirm i.e., Golden Plaza Restaurant is the tenant, but not petitioner of other person who are shown as delendant in O.S.No.529 of 2021. Therefore, there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent/ plaintiff. Therefore, the tria,l Court failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner/defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.607 ot 2O2l in O.S.No.529 of 2O2l and sought for rejection of the plaint on severa.l grounds and the trial Court on contest dismissed the said petition by an order dated 09. l2.2o2l holding that all the conditions which were put forth by the petitioner/ defendant No. 1 may require trial and not for rejection of plaint. Therefore, in view of the said finding, the Court below came to conclusion that the trial is required to the said issue.

¶52

i0. The petitioner further claimed that the very ownership of 1"t respondent/ plaintiff in the suit schedule

¶53

¶54

S.SRN. J c.R.P.No.1974 of 2O22

¶55

admitted that thc said partncrship u,as tenant of the suit schedule propert'. Therelore. in vierv of the averments ilr O.S.No.7O7 of 2017 thc partnership firm was tenant, but the above referred suit '*,as filed against the petitioner hercirr and other clefer-rdants.

¶56

1+. Thereflore, the petitioner has claimed that the suit schedule propert-, r'r'as under lease of Golden Restaurant The1, arc not liable to pa.v any rent to the I "t responden t / plain ti ff.

¶57

It mav be true that the respondent/plaintiff filed tlr,o suits referred above. In the alfidavit filed in respect of the petition itself, the respondent/ plaintiff has categorically stated that there rrvere mistakes in the plaint and he has withdrawn O.S.No.165 of 2016 and the other suit vide O.S.No. 1595 of 2O1B rvas also withdrawn due to technical defects. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take any advantage from the pleadings in the plaint in O.S.No.165 of 2016 and 1595 of 2O18. In fact, they were not pressed as such they are not admitted pleadings of the

¶58

¶59

ssal\I, J c.R.P.No. r974 oJ 2022

¶60

re spondent / plaintiff. The petitioner cannot claim lhat there are some admissior-rs in her favour.

¶61

As could be seen from the record, it is very clear that the husband of the petitioner has filed O.S.No.548 of 2Ol5 for injunction against the respondent/plaintiff. As per the a\rerments made in O.S.No.548 of 2O15 the husband of the petitioner rramelv S.Shiva Kumar admitted that he took the propert\ under rental deed lor establishing a hotel and admitted monthlS'rent is Rs.29,0001-. He has also stated in the plaint that he <sup>ras paying rents regularly. It appears that the petitioner and other legal representatives of Shiva Kumar have filed a petition in the said suit and sought to implead them as legal heirs of the deceased Shiva Kumar and an order was passed vide Ex.Pl7 on 08.04.202 1.

¶62

As per the documents produced before the trial Court vide trxs.P16, 17 and 20, it is quite clear that the husband ol the petitioner herein has admitted the lease with the plaintifl and the petitioner and other defendants in the suit on their own application sought to be added as legal

¶63

1.)

¶64

ssRlv, J C.R.P.No.1974 ol 2022

¶65

representatives of S,Shi'.r [(umar, thereby trial Court rightl,v held that there is jural relationship betw'een the petitioner No.1 and other defendants and responded/ piaintilf. The Court below having considered the contentions of the said S.Shiva Kumar in O.S.No.54B of 2015 whereunde r he has erdmitted the agreed rent as Rs.29,00O/ per month and in view of the application filed b1, the petitioncr an d othcr dcfendalts with a request to impiead them as lcgai reprcscntatives ol S.Shiva Kumar, rightly held that the respondent/ plaintiff has proved the tenancy of the petitioner admitted rent as Rs.29,000/- and rightly passed ar order in favour of the re spondent/ plair.rti ff.

¶66

The petitioners have claimed that there were other suits filed by the respondent / plaintiff and in the plaints of the other suits there <sup>rere averments in their favour, but it is very clear from the record that those plaints were not pressed/withdrawn on the ground that there were mistakes. Therefore, the same cannot be considered as admissions ol the respondents. On the other hand in^view

¶67

¶68

ssRrv, J c.R.P.No.1974 of 2022

¶69

ol the impleacl petition filed b1' the petitioner and her childrcn the-r' htrvc admitted the^jurai relationship and nos' tn,ing to disou'n the said^plea whcn they were directed to clear the arrrars ol rennet. Therefore, the trial Court rightll, AS allowed the petition fiIed by the respondent/ plaintiff, such this revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶70

In the result. the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No co sts.

¶71

As a scqucl. pcnding Miscellaneous Applications, if an1,, shall star-rd closcd.

¶72

Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR^RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

/iTRUE COPY//

'tt Jl

SECTION OFFICER

To,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, nga Reddy District^{at L.B. Nagar}

¶80

One CC to Sri^P Shiv^{Kumar,Advocate} IOPUCI

¶81

. One CC to Sri^{Venkateswarlu Sanisetty,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶82

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710312023

ORDER CRP.No.1974 of 2022

¶87

, tl l: i a.-_'
..tct i.
{$
(^

¶88

Dismi SS ing the Civil Revision Petition @rid Wp

Kamini Devi v. S. Hanumanth Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamini Devi v. S. Hanumanth Reddy

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

Yellendula Venkateshwarlu and 3 others Vs M/s. Shriram Chits Private Limited

Thanneeru Yella Rao Vs Smt. K. Sowjanya

Smt. Samala (Kanche) Yadamma alias Sahasra Vs Samala Kumar alias S.Ravi

The Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s.R.G.R.Siddanthi Educational Society

Dr. D Bhanu Prakash Vs Shareef Hussain

K. Suryamani Vs K. Janardhan Reddy