Dismissed

Mohammed Aslam Patel v. Mohammed Altaf-Ur-Rahman

Telangana HC2 Feb 2024CRP/2022/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition was dismissed upholding a lower appellate order that rejected the petitioner's application to produce a leave and license agreement. The High Court affirmed that the lower court correctly identified the agreement as a lease deed based on party admissions and charged the petitioner with rent arrears.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed; the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 remaining. No order as to costs.

Mohammed Aslam Patel Vs Mohammed Altaf-Ur-Rahman — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAYTHE SECOND DAYOF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CIVIL RE SION PETIT NNO 2022 2023

¶6

Petition Under section 115 of cpc against the order dated 1047-2023 rn l.A.No. 465 ol 2o22 in A.s.No. 23s of 2017 on the file of the court of the 10th Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between:

¶7

Mohammed Asram^pater, son of lVrohammed wahed pater, aged about 35 years, occupation: Business, resident of care of s.B. rraue.rs ri-ihi"s-do[i-1i". 5 iii'+, MCH No. 94-1 16/43, Batreddy Nagar, Totichowki iyOeraOad

¶8

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Mohammed ALTAF-UR-RAHMAN, son of M.A. Khariq, aqed about 86 vears. occupatio n :^pen s ioner, r eside nt oi 22 _2+ssh, N;i i+, a-; H;",1 Hft 6;;b.'d.

¶11

,,.RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶12

lA NO: { OF 2023

¶13

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit.fite_d in support of the peiitio;, ine uigtr Coud;;rG pr""Jt" dispense with filing of the certified copy of the impuined order dited io-or-ziflzs passed in l.A.No. 645 ot 2022 in A.S.No. zss oi iotz of the court of the 10th Additional Chief Judge City Civil court Hyderabad.

¶14

lA NO:2 oF 2023

¶15

Petition under section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit-fired in support of the peiitio;, itre Higt' court may ue jreasea-to staying all .further proceeding of the appear suit-being A.s.No.zsi ot i,i hcluding all other intertocutory application peMing adjuJication oy tne Hon ote court of the 10th Additionat chief Judge'city c'ivit^'court Hydeiaua;, iiti'ih" disposal of the above Revision.

¶16

IA NO:3 OF m

¶17

,lrffi **l.fi ffE;rfi,,:,-+gr,.

¶18

Counset for the petitioner : Sri Mohd ttyas Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Syed Ahmed Afi The Court made the following:

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.^SUJANA CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.2O22 of^2o.23

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Aggrieved by the order dated 1O.O7.2023^passed in^{I.A.No.465 of} 2022 in A.S.No.235 of 2Ol7 by the^learned X Additional^{Chief Judge,} City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the^{presentCivilRevision Petition is frled-}

¶22

I.A.No.465 of 2022 is frled under Order XI Rule^{14 read with} Rule 2l and Section 151 of the Code of Civil^{Procedure,1908,by the} petitioner/ appellant to direct the respondent to produce the original Leave and License Agreement, dated 01.01.2012,^{and the samewas} dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, this Civil^{Revision Petition.}

¶23

Heard Sri Mohd. Iliyas, learned counsel for^{the petitioner as well} as Sri Syed Ahmed Ali, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when^the contract between the parties is only Leave and License Agreement^{or a} rental agreement, the Court below ought not to have dismiss I.A.No.465 of 2022 along with unconcerned application i.e.,^I.A.No.794 of 2O2O, stating that it is an old matter and has to be disposed^of, which is not the ground for adjudication of an application.

¶25

karned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Court below deliberately refused to^pass an order under Rule XXI Order I I, rvhich mendates ,: ,:-l^" an order or direction to the

¶26

¶27

c.R.p.No.2o22 ofsf&!

¶28

c.R.p.No.2o22 respondent who had very categorica-lly admitted that the contract between the parties was Leave or License in their plaint pleading including the preamble of the Judgment under this revision. Thus, thereby sustaining the illegarity to be continued under assumption of Lease alleged to have been executed by the parties herein, and in the absence of the mandatory document as required for ascertaining the nature of contract between the parties and maintainabirity of the suit artd appeal under Section 106 of Transfer of property Act, lgg2, was not at a, considered by the court berow and without considering this aspect by the learned Judge, who had arrived to unjust conclusion by dismissing the apprication without passing mandatory relief, is bad in Iaw.

¶29

6 ' Learned counser further submitted that court below failed to

¶30

appreciate the clear admission of the respondent which was established from his sworn statement filed, and passe d an unjust order failing to determine and ascertain the nature of contract. Therefore, prayed the Court to direct the respondent to produce the record i.e., Leave and License Agreement, dated O l.O l.2O 1 2 before the Court below, failing which the Court below is directed to dismiss the suit vide o.S.No. 1030 0f 2015.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent filed counter denying the averments of the revision petition stating that this

¶32

¶33

SI(s,J C.R.P.No.2O22 ol 2023

¶34

revision is not maintainable as^{per law. He further submitted that} challenging the decree of^{eviction,passedin O.S.No.1030 of 2015,the} petitioner filed appeal suit uide A.S.No.235 of 2017,^{who is} the^tenant in the suit schedule premises and to drag^{on the matter. Earlierhe} filed C.R.P.No.4956 of 2Ol7 and the^{same was dismissedon} 22.02.2023. During the^pendency of^{the Appeal Suit, revision} petitioner carne up with another^{petition uide I-A-No-794 of 2020,} under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC^{read with 151 of CPC to frameadditional} issues claiming that the trial Court^{failed to frame issues on the} disputed facts. When the counter^was filed^{mentioning the detailsof} the issues framed by the trial court, along^{with the copy of the} judgment passed in the suit, then subsequently, the petitioner carne up with another petition uide^1.A.No.465 of 2022 in^A.S.No.235of 2017 under Order 11 RuIe 14 of CPC read with^{Rule21 andSection} 151 of CPC. Both the petitions were dismissed by the^{appellateCourt} vide order dated 10.07.2023, against which, he filed this Civil^Revision Petition arrd the same is not maintainable as the^{petitioner did not} deposit the arrears of rents as directed by this Court in^{C.R.P.No.4956} of 2Ol7 and it is only a vexatious petition^just to drag on the^matter. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss this revision^petition.

¶35

Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, it

¶36

¶37

srs,J C.R.P.No.2022 ol 2023

¶38

appears that the revision petitioner filed the petition under Order XI Rule 14 read with Rule 21 and Section 151 of CpC to direct the respondent to produce original Leave and License Agreement dated OLOl.2Ol2. The suit for e'riction was filed by the respondent before the trial Court without filing the agreement of lrave and License, dated 01.01.2OI2, entered between himself and the petitioner and the suit was decreed in the year 2Ol2 directing the petitioner herein to vacate the suit schedule property and handover the vacate possession within one month from the date of judgment, failing which, the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for eviction. The petitioner is liable to play the arrears of rent of Rs.2,60,200/-. The petitioner had admitted rental deed as Leave and License Agreement the Cou rt below while decreeing the suit uide O.S.No. 1O3O of 20 15 has clearly mentioned that the period of lease is completed by the date of issuance of legal notice by the respondent/plaintiff under Ex.Al and there is no extension of lease after expiry of the lease period, which shows that the document is lease deed and the lease can be terminated by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the peLitioner accepted the tenancy and he also paid the rents. The revision petitioner had issued reply notice to the legal notice issued by the respondent, wherein it was not denied that it is not a lease and in his cross examination also, he admitted that he never issued any notice to extend the lease and even did not raise the said intention in

¶39

¶40

srs,J C.R.P.No.2O22 o! 2023

¶41

the reply notice got issued by him. In written statement also, he mentioned that it was a lease agreement. Therefore, there are no merits in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confrrming the order dated IO.O7.2O23 in passed I.A.No.465 of 2022 in A.S.No.235 of 2017 by the learned X Additional Chief Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

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

¶44

To,

¶45

//TRUE COPY/'

¶46

Sd/- N CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSTSTANT rEGISTRAR /,/ SECTION OFFICER'rh-"

¶47

1 The Xth Additional Chief Judge City Civil Cou(, Hyderabad.(With Records if any) 2 One CC to Sri Mohd llyas, Advocate tOpUCI 3 One CC to Sri Sled Ahmed Ati, Advocate tOpUCI 4 Two CD Copies

cr\t

)

HIGH COURT

DATED: O2\OA2O24

ORDER

CRP.No.2022 of 2023

¶55

S rAr€
jr. i'
<br>0 fl APB 2[24
)
n-
t
t o
€sPAic$

¶56

DISMISSING THE CRP

¶57

*I.u.sil

Mohammed Aslam Patel v. Mohammed Altaf-Ur-Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Aslam Patel v. Mohammed Altaf-Ur-Rahman

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

Abdul Qadeer Vs Asma Begum

Gaddam Satyanarayan Reddy, Vs Devasani Shekaraiah

Qazi Nawabuddin Vs The District Collector

Tati Hemalatha @ Gunda Hemalatha Vs Tati Chaitanya Babu

Vuppala Sai Krishna Vs Vuppala Venkata Ramana Varaprasad

Naseema Shaik Vs Avula Narender alias S.K. Sameer