Dismissed

Dr. Rabindranath C v. Mr. L. Lalitha Shanker

Telangana HC6 Apr 2023CRP/592/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition filed under Article 227 by a party-in-person against an order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject a landlord's plaint. The High Court refused to interfere in the absence of a well-considered order indicating error.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

Dr. Rabindranath C Vs Mr. L. Lalitha Shanker — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^2s861

¶2

i I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 592 OF 2023

¶8

Petition Under Afticle 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 10-06-2022 in l.A.No.81 of 2022 in O.S.No.2925 of 2O16 on the file of the Court of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Dr. Rabindranath C, S/o. Mr. Gopal Swamy C. Occp. Doctor of Medicine, R/o. 1- 2- 2881N303 J.B.Apartments Domalguda, Hyderabad^- 500029

¶11

..Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant

¶12

AND

¶13

Mr. L. Lalitha Shanker, S/o L Nirmal Kumar Aged 59^years, Occp Business Presently Staying at 77Bl North West Roanridge Road Missouri^- 64151,^{U- S. A.} ,^{Rep. by GPA HolderLate L. Murali DeviW/o.L. Nirmal Kumar aged 85 years,} housewifu No 1- 2- 2131211, Amardeep Apartments^{Domalguda, Hyderabad-} 500029

¶14

...RespondenURespondenUPlaintiff

¶15

fA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High} Court^{may be pleased to} stay on all further^proceedings in the^{said OS. No. 2925 ot 2016 on the file of} Hon'ble Court of the X Junior Civil Judge,^{as the Hon'bleCourt is speedingup} the matters for disposal of the case^{in orderto Cover Up the factsof the case.}

¶17

Counset for the Petitioner: SRI Dr. RABINDRANATH^{C, PARTY lN PERSON}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent:^{None Appeared}

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

¶21

HO ['BLE SRI^{JUSTICEP.NAVEEN RAO}

¶22

CruIL REVISIO^{N PETITroN NO.592 0F 20:23}

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Ile ard thc^{p .:Litioner,party-in-personThe respo rr'en' ht:rcinis} rhe plaintill^{an( pct is thedefe ndantThe pteLintilf institrrted} O.S.No.2925^{of 2')16 in the Court of X Junior Civil 'J:r.ge' City Civil} Court at llvrler,:tr^{rd prayingto grant decreedirecLingt:r( d( lendan"Lo} vacatc and hat'rr^{over possession of the demisedF'r( Inl ics to the} plaintiff; ro dircc tht: dcfendant^{to pay plaintiff Rs'50'l)00/-tou'ards} arrears of^{rr:nt, r irecldcfendantlo pay the plairrtiffarrlarjo[ mcsnc} profits ol Rs. 1.2( ,t)OO/-^{(a Rs.2O,OOO/-per mon h lro r:th 'r month of} May,2016 till^{()c ober,2O16 and future mesne prrfits at he said rzrte of} Rs.20,000/^{per nlonth from the month of Novemb<:r'2o 16 tillthe} defendant vaczrt('^{Lhe demised premises'}

¶25

2.Inthesai.lsuitpetitionerhereinfiledl.A.No.8lof2022under Order VII Rule i^{I reerd with Section151 CPC praving tlc Ccurt to reject} the plaint on^{tb:: ground that there is no cause of act'onagainstthe} petitioner/ clef,:n lant at any^{point of time'The triaCourthaving} considered tl'rt:^{submissionsmade on both sides dil;missedthe} applicaliorl b1'^{t> 'der dated 1O.06.2022, impugne<l herein'}

¶26

Fronr a r:ading of^{the averrtentsand subrnissitlt-lsmerde, the} learned trial ,J:rtgc, opined that there^{exists. cause of action and}

dismissed^{the applicationAccordingly'the Lrial Court held that thc} cause^{of action is based on bundleof facts and lhe facts narrated in thc} plaint^{woulddisclosethat there exists causeof action'}

¶31

. The^{party-in-personsubmitsthal the grounds urged by him in} the^{revisionbe considered to test the correctnessof the decisionof the} trial^Court 5 In the^{groundsurged by the petitioner' he would contendthat} there^{is lack of causeof action against thc petitioneras there rs no} tenant^{between thePetitionerand} relationshiP^{oflandlordand} respondent/^{plaintiff is an unknown} respondent/ Plaintiff^{since the} person^{to the petitioner and a residentof United Statesof AmericaHe} would^{further contend that the contradicting statements are made by} different^{counseland this ought to havebeen considered by the trial} Court.^{He would further contend that as seenfrom the reply notice} dated^{11.05.2016a power of attorney was executedin the name of Smt} L. Murali^{Devi on the same day who is an unknown person to the} defendant^{and said Smt L'MuraliDevi is neither an ownernor the GPA} holder^{during the periodbetween30'09'2013and the day on which the} suit^{flat wasleasedout and GPA was executed'}

¶32

In the^{aff-rdavithled in support of the application under Order VII} Rule^{11 CPC, petitioner narrates various developments and in} paragraph^{No'9 he assertsthat there.is no relationshipbetween the}

i t I

parries as lzrrrrllor iirn(1 tcnirnt and thereforc, the <.ausr: ol ac:ion shoq,n by thr: plair '-iil rotaily vag.e. He wourd conlen(1 trrrt rrc has ,ot obtaincd lhc stLrr sc hr:duie ,roper[] from the plairrtifl a s :larmecl r. the plaint at an\ [)or rt ol time. I{c does not know th,] rrit ttc ol origrnal owner zrnrl tlter:| re, .o cituse of action arise agai.st th,: rlcft ndant. He urges [ht: Court ro take rrote of the averments ol the rr:1tiy notice and the replr statcm rnt filed by the defendant for consicrr:rarion of fhe applic;rtiorr zLncl r r-ges that the causc of action shown in -rre plaint ,"r,as .:nly crr:atcd lbr ti e purpose of filing of the suit. petitirt:ter crrtegorrcally. dcnies thir t i)e tri s not obtained suit schedule prcmise s on teasc lrom the plain:1ff.

¶37

l, the p ai rt. t.he plaintiff avers that he rs tht: :wrrer of Frat No.3O3, adrneasu-ing 900 Sq.feet, J.B, Air Cooled Apa:trnerrts bearing H.No. 1-2-2827':iOi^j, Domalguda, Hyderabad, having purchased Lhe same from T.G. lala Subramanian vide registered sak_. deed bearing Document No. 125 3 of 200g. He urges that the defendz.n I olrtained the demised prerniser iiom the plaintiff on lease bzLsis i, the morth of October, 2013, ap:eeing to pay monthly rent of Rs lO,OtrO/_ r.xclusive of electricitl'and ls. er charges and lease was oral and on :nr)nt1to rnonth basis. According to the plaintiff, he is staying in USA srnc 199g and his mother L.Ift rali Dei,i has been looking afrer the prrperties of plaintiff. As r he mother of' plaintiff settled the terms ol. le tse on his behalr, she rvas colrecting rents from the derendant and taking

¶38

¶39

)

¶40

of plaintiff^{andage of the mother'the} advantage^{of the absence} the^{rentsand not clcarcd the arrearsof rents} dcfendant^{is notPaYtng} paYable^{to the Plaintiff'}

¶41

This^{assertion of the O'""]n-'",:t::":.:j""} :.:::::: However,^{the issue of ownershipclaim' leastng} whether^{the defendantis entitled to pay the rentsto the plaintiffare} rnatters^{whichrequire considerationduring the courseof trial'}

¶42

g. himseif Suf[rce^{has admitted to note that as in the petition observed that by he has the trial given Court' a cheque petitionerfor} Rs.20,00O/-^{as caudofl deposit to one Mrs' Anuradha in the name of} Murali^{Devi who is none other than the mother of plaintiffand the GPA} holder'^{This staternentof the petitioner would point out thal petitioner} is a^{tenant of the subject premises'Therefore' the trial Court has} opined^{that it cannot be said that there is no cause of action against the} defendant^{to reject the Plaint'}

¶43

10'^{Having regard to the parameters laid down in precedent decisions} to^{consider an application"*:t *:-'::::,ffit:"::";::} any^{error committedby the trial Court in reJet}

¶44

a well^{consideredorder'}

¶45

11.^{The Civil RevisionPetition is accordingly dismissed' However'} there^{is no expression of opinion on merits and it is for the petidoner to}

¶46

-6-

¶47

plrLinlill'. Pending^{miscellancc'us:rpplLcrlions' ll}

¶48

contcsL^{the cltrirn} any, shall^{starn(l clo: (l(l}

¶49

Sd/- MOHD.^{SAttA.ULr-AH ANSARI} ASSIS'TP.NT^REGISTRAR

¶50

¶51

,TRUE COPY// i.i

¶52

I;ECTION OFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54

The^X Junior^{C vil Judge, City Civil Courtat Hyderatrad}

¶55

2.OneCCtoDrRabindranathC,S/o.Mr.GopalSwamyC.occp..Doctorof - il"ii.i*'-nto 1- 2- ZAALA/aOC J.B.Apartments Domal3tda, Hyderabad - 5OOO29,^{PATIT T IN PERSON}

¶56

Two CD CoPie^;

kam

$-lx

i l I I i I 1 I

I I

HIGH COURT

PNR,J

DATED:06104'2023

ORDER

CRP.No.592 <fi 2023

t r '.t 4,, .)..
o 'rl..,
1F 6 ,; <br>O) v
:<br>.t' ,l
s\i
do \ .<t!i
\ .(' I.
)-l'
oJ ;-1l?I * ,/

¶67

THE CIVIL RI:VlSlON PETITION IS DISMISSE )

¶68

'.).-)
l<br>'/vr)

Dr. Rabindranath C v. Mr. L. Lalitha Shanker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Rabindranath C v. Mr. L. Lalitha Shanker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Qadeer Vs Syed Naseer

M/s. Sreenilaya Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. S. N. Srinivas

Sri Gayatri Japayagna Parishat Vs A.N. Dasarath

M/ s. Edessary Pharma Vs Dr. Prakash P Ghatage

Mohd. Saleem Vs P.Naveen Kumar

A.B. Joseph (Expired) Vs Akkladevi Parameshwar