Dismissed

Sri Shaik Nawaz v. Mohd Aleem

Telangana HC13 Apr 2023CRP/3023/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order directing petitioners to deposit admitted rent under Order XV-A CPC. Relying on the lease deed clause evidencing delivery of vacant possession, the Court rejected the claim of lack of possession and dismissed the revision, granting time for deposit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted time to deposit arrears of rent on or before 02.06.2023 and continue paying monthly rent; Civil Revision Petition dismissed against the order directing deposit of rent.

Sri Shaik Nawaz Vs Mohd Aleem — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3023 0F 2022

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of rhe constitution of lndia, against the order made in l.A.No.54 ol 2o22 in o.s.No.312 ot 2022 dated 09.11.2022 on the file of the lX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

!!^{Sna( Nawaz, S/o. Late Shaik Baban,Age 39 years,} Occ Business, R/o. 13_64341N139, Sardar Bagh, Reti Bowli Ring Road, Hyd-erabad

¶9

AND

¶10

D E F E N Dfi,irr lI 3t: flii,"r=.1tAll

¶11

Mohd Aleem, S/o. Late Moulvi Mohd lbrahim, Age 61 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No. 12- 2- 83811713, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶14

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 09-1 1-2022 made in l.A.No. s4 of 2022 in o.s.No.312 of 2022 on the file of the lX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : MIR MUKARRAM ALI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : SYED YASAR MAMOON

¶17

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

l I l

i I

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶22

CIVIL REVI SION PETITION NO.3o23 0F 2022

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Pe tirroner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.372 of 2022. Respondenr/ piainriff fited I.A.No.54 of 2022 in O.S.No.3 t2 of 2022 on the file of IX Junior Civil Judgc, City Civil Court Hyderabad, under Order XV-A read with Section l S l of the Code ot Civil procedure (CpC) praying to dircct the respondent therein to pay the admitted rcntal amounI oI Rs- 16'500/- until disposal of the suit. on contest the Lriai Court havrng founci that petitioner was vested wrth possession of the suit schedulc property and admittedly not paying the rent, directed payment of rent (r! Rs. 16,500/_ lrom January , 2022 till the disposal of the suit.

¶25

karned counser for the petitioner sought to contend that in I.A.No.6I4 of 2022 liled Order VII Rule 11 read with section ISI CpC application' the trial court observed that the issue of whether petitioner was put to physical possession of the suit schedule property and whether subsequent to execution of Iease deed there existed jural relationship between the parties are the matters which require consideration during the course of trial. But, when it comes to Order xv-A cPC application the triar court herd that the terms of rease deed indicate handing over possession, therefore, petitioner is in possession

¶26

¶27

and this Iinding is contrary to the earlier hnding and on that ground the order is liable to be set aside.

¶28

According to learned counsel, possession was never vested in the petitioner and he is not in possession of the suit schedr-rle property, even though the terms of lease deed indicate handing over of possession.

¶29

Clause '6' of the lease deed dated 7O.O2.2O21 clearly indicates delivery of vacant possession of the schedule propert5z to the lessec and lessee is in physical possession of the schedule property. With eyes wide open petitioner agreed for the said clause and having agrced for the said clause, prima facie, he cannot turn around and say that he is not in possession in Order XV-A CPC application.

¶30

5 Having regard to clause '6' of the lease agreement, I do not see any error committed by the trial Court, directing the petitioner to e depolitthe ."it" f.orn January 2022

¶31

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requests some more time for depositing the amount. Considering the said request, petitioner is granted time to deposit arrears of rent on or before 2"d Jrne, 2023 and shall continue to^pay monthly rent as ordered by the triai Court.

¶32

¶33

Subject^{to .1bovc, thc CivilRevisionPetitionis dismissedPending}

¶34

misccllaneous^{applications, if an-v, shali stand closed'}

¶35

Sd/- K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

G- SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To, 1 The lX Junior^{Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad} 2 OnL CCio^{ftrit N/ukarrim Ali, Advocate (OPUC)} 5;; cc iJ sv"i^{Vulu,.Mamoon,Advocbte (oPUC)} 4 Two CD CoPies kS PR

HIGH COURT

PNRJ

DATED:1310412023

I t. o k 1 E LA,v C
I A\ *
6_,'3
.\ LL!
{--1
\ ,o
<br>^'-, r , qlrr I

¶43

ORDER

¶44

CRP.No.3O23 of 2022

¶45

Dismissing the C.R.P Without costs.

¶46

(

Sri Shaik Nawaz v. Mohd Aleem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shaik Nawaz v. Mohd Aleem

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. Deccan Wine House and Amrit Bar and Restaurant,Partnership firm Vs Sri Radhakrishna and 2 others

Dr. Rabindranath C Vs Mr. L. Lalitha Shanker

Smt. Bano Begum Vs Sri S. Praveen Kumar

Mr. Mohd Faheemuddin Vs Mr. Mujeeb Ur Rehman

Mr. Mumtaz Shareef Vs Syed Shafiullah

Chowrala Santosh Kumar and 4 Others Vs Akula Shobha Rani and 10 Others