Dismissed

Monarch Residency/Apartments Flat Owners Welfare Association v. N Dhan Raj Goud

Telangana HC5 Feb 2025CRP/5997/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order that allowed a respondent to deposit monthly maintenance dues in the Court's account during pendency of a suit for recovery of such dues rather than directly to the flat owners association.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed with liberty to avail appropriate remedies under law.

Monarch Residency/Apartments Flat Owners Welfare… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132171

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 5997 of 2017

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndra, aggrieved by the order dated 19-07 -2017 passed in lA.No.708 of 2017 in lA.No 196 of 2017 in O.S.No.1 19 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the 1't Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, District, at L.B.Nagar

¶8

Between

¶9

Monarch Residency/Apartments Flat Owners Welfare Association, Reg.No. 107112016, rep. by lts General Secretary, G.Sudhakar Rao S/o. Narayana Swamy, Age: 60 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/ o. H. No. 1-1-297, Flast 'C' Block, 'B' [\4onarch Apartments, Balaji Colony, Road No.6, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

N. Dhan Raj Goud, S/o. Veera Swamy Goud, Age. 48 years, Occ. Head Constable No. 521, Communication Department, O/o. Administrative Office, Police Training Centre, (PTC) Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶13

R/o. Flat No. 108 and 1 06-8, [Vlonarch Apartments, Balaji Colony. Road No.6, l\ilohan Nagar, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

...Respondent

¶15

l.A. NQ: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 7744 OF 20171

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in LA.No.708 o'f 2017 in 1.A.No.196 ol 2017 in O S.No.119 of 2017 on the file of Hon'ble^'1"t Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the CRP.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

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 permit Mr.Konakanchi Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Konakanchi Anjaneyulu, aged 49 years, Occ. Govt Employee R/o. Flat.No. 107 Monarch Apartment, Balajinagar

¶19

Colony, Road.No. 6, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, R.R.District to irnplead as party Respondent No.2 in C.R.P.No.5997 of 2017.

¶20

IANO:2OF2 018

¶21

Between:

¶22

N. Dhan Raj Goud, S/o. Veera Swamy Goud, Age: 48 years, Occ. Head Constable No. 521, Communication Department, O/o. Administrative Office, Police Training Centre, (PTC) Amberpet, Hyderabad. R/o. Flat No. 108 and 106-8, Monarch Apartments, Balaji Colony, Road No.6, [/ohan Nagar, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶23

...Vacate Petitioner

¶24

AND

¶25

Morta rctr. ^Residency/Apartments Flat Owners Welfare Association, Reg. No. 1O7112016, rep. by lts General Secretary, G.sudhakar Rao S/o.^'Nara"yana Swamy _Age. -60 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/ o. H. No. 1-1-297, Ftasi^,C, Block, 'B' Monarch Apartments, Balaji Colony, Road No.6, Ivlohan Nagar, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶26

...Res pondent

¶27

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 vacate the stay passed in C.R P.M,p.No7744 of 2017 in C.R.p.No.5997 of 2017, dt.^'10.1 1 .2017 , in the interest of justice.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. C. padmaja

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K. Gani Reddy

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

',-t

¶32

i li i i

¶33

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI}

¶34

c. .P o.5997 of²⁰¹⁷

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Civil^{Revision Petition has been flled bythe} petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved^{by the order dated 19'07 '2017 in} I.A.No.7OB ot^{2Ol7 in I.A'No'196of 2017 in O'S'No'119of 20t7on} the file of^{the I Additionallunior Civil Judge' RangaReddy District' at} L.B. Nagar.

¶37

Heard^{Smt. V'Padmaja, learned counsel forthe} petitioner/plaintiff^{and Sri K'Gani Reddy' learned counsel for the} respondent/defenda^nt.

¶38

The revision^{petitioneris the plaintiff' who filed the suit} seeking^{recovery of amount of Rs'95'400/- with 24olo interest per} annum^{with costs from the respond ent/defenda nt'}

¶39

relevant^{facts are thatthe} 4. BrieflY^{stated the} owner of two^{(2) flats in the plaintiff's} respondent/defendant^wasthe apartment^{and as per the by-laws, the plaintiff-associationhad raised} demand^{formaintenancecharges' However' asthe} respondent/defendant^{failedtopay monthlY maintenance,the} petitioner had^{filed the suit for recoveryof dues' During pendency of}

¶40

¶41

¶42

the suit, at the instance of praintitF I.A.No.1g6 0f 2077 was rired for payment of monthly maintenance and the trial Court has directed the respondent/defendant to pay Rs.600/- per month towards maintenance cha rges. However, the respondent/defendant contending that they would not have security for the amount, if paid to the association, sought for direction of the Court to deposit monthly maintenance charges in the trial Court, subject to the entitlement determined in the suit. The trial Court vide impugned order had permitted the respondent to deposit the amount in the Court's account as prayed for by the respondent. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision has been filed.

¶43

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner had contended that the impugned order has been passed without there being notice and the association is entired to receive the maintenance amount from the flat owners. The trial Court by disregarding the legal position and without notice on the revisioner/respondent allowed the respondent/defenda nt to deposit the maintenance amount in the Court's account and it rendered the order in I.A.No.196 of 2OU ineffective. Furthermore contested that the Hon,ble Division Bench of this Court in Bollant Industries pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing ?:n", Srikanth Bolla v. state of Tetangana, Rep by the principal

¶44

¶45

Secretary and^{othersl in W'P'No'499oof 2024 held that as per} Section 21^{of the TelanganaApartments (Promotlonof Construction} and Ownership)^{Act, 1987,(hereinafter'the 1987Act') the Apartment} welfare Association^{is entitled for collecting maintenancecharges'} Thus, the trial^{courthas grosslyerred in passingthe impugned order} and^{prayed for interference.}

¶46

Learned counsel^{for the respondent/defendanthad contended} that basing^{on the impugned order, the respondent/defendantis} depositing^{the maintenance charges in the trial Court's account and} there is^no default.^{Furtherasserted that the revision petitioner has} not made out^{any tenable ground for intefference'}

¶47

7 I have carefully^{perused the material on record'}

¶48

It is^{in agreementthat in I'A'No'196of 2Ol7' the trial Court} has directed^{the respondent/defendantto pay Rs'600/- per month} towards the^{maintenancecharges' In the impugned order' the} respondent/defendant^{has been permitted to depositthe maintenance} charges in^{the Court's account'}

¶49

In the^{given circumstances, the aspectsfor determination} would be whether^{the impugned order was passed withoutnotice to}

¶50

'^{202+scconLineTS404}

¶51

¶52

the revision petitio n erl respon dent there is any impropriety in the impugned order?

¶53

On the first count, the preamble of the impugned order is reading that learned counsel for the respondent was present and that the order was passed in his presence. It is also pertinent to note that generally, the interlocutory applications pending suit would be filed only after service of notice on the other side and on even Court would insist such service. Having regard to the general practice and clear mention about the presence of learned counsel for the respondent in the impugned order, this Court finds no substance in the contention that the order was passed without notice.

¶54

In regard to propriety of the impugned order, in Bollant Industries (supra) the Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court had considered the contention and affirmed the constitution validity of the Section 21 of the 1987 Act. This provision prescribes that the Manager or Board of Managers of an Association of apartment owners may, after due notice of not less than seven days, for just and sufficient cause, cut off, withhold or in any manner curtail or reduce, any essential supply or service enjoyed by an apartment owner. Thus, this authority in no way substantiating the petitioner's plea that, direction of the Court to deposit the maintenance charges into

¶55

¶56

the Court account^{pendingthe suit is bad and unsustainable'In that} view, no illegality^{is found in the impugnedorder'}

¶57

1A For the aforesaid^{reasonsno merit in this revisionpetition'} Accordingly, the^{revision petitionis dismissed' However liberty is} granted to the revision^{petitionerto avail appropriate remedies} available under^{law. No costs.}

¶58

As a sequel,^{miscellaneousapplications, pendingif any' shall}

¶59

stand closed.

¶60

sd/-^{MOHD. ISMAIL} AS IST^NTREGISTRAR

¶61

I/TRUE^COPY//

¶62

SEC^{TION OFFICER}

¶63

To, 1. 2. 3 4^H: Two^{:i CD r CoPtes:iii ti"ffi fii U;ii:xjts'"'"r''} kam/DL &

¶64

d v,^{District,atLBNagar}

¶65

HIGH COURT DATED:0510212025

¶66

ORDER

¶67

CRP.No.5997 of 2017

¶68

.<br>t:
u^)
3 0 APn 2B?5 i'
+t
'/l
+
A.1 a

¶69

DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

¶70

iN{
1L
0

Monarch Residency/Apartments Flat Owners Welfare Association v. N Dhan Raj Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monarch Residency/Apartments Flat Owners Welfare Association v. N Dhan Raj Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Seetarama Reddy, Ranga Reddy Dist Vs K Narapa Reddy, Secunderabad

The Principal Accountant General (Audit) Vs The Accountants General Office Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited

Raghunandan Chary Vs Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

B.Laxmipathi Vs M.Murali

Smt. Jilla. @ Kavali Jagadamba Vs The Joint Collector(s)

P Balamani Vs Nawab Mir Ahmed Ali Khan , Mohd Ali Baig (Died)