Telangana High Court
Sawanraj Yadav vs R. Gajanand Yadav on 8 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1653 OF 2024
ORDER:
With consent finally heard, Sri Umesh Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel
for the respondent.
2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
assails the order dated 15.02.2024 in I.A.No.556 of 2023 in
O.S.No.2374 of 2023 on the file of XX Junior Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby, the application filed under Order
XV-A Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the
plaintiff/landlord/respondent herein was allowed by the Court
below.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein i.e.,
defendant/tenants submits that the said order is bad in law.
During the course of hearing, he fairly submitted that no doubt
the plaintiff's mother was the landlord of the suit schedule
property. However, she sold the said property to the father of
defendants through an unregistered document in the year 2002.
Thereafter, no rent was paid by the defendants or their father.
The father of defendants died in the year 2021. There is no jural
SP, J
CRP_1653_2024
relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. There is no
rent receipt which shows that the defendants have ever paid rent
to the plaintiff. By placing reliance on the judgment of Andhra
Pradesh High Court in the case of Aritaakula Satyanarayana
Murthy vs. Patchipulusu Naga Suneetha 1, it is submitted that
when there exists a serious dispute about the relationship of
landlord and tenant and also about the title between both the
parties, full-fledged trial should be conducted. It is submitted that
along with the un-registered document to sell the mother of
plaintiff provided all original documents of title to the father of
defendants. The Court below has committed error in allowing the
application preferred under Order XV-A Rule 1 read with Section
151 of the CPC.
4. Countering the aforesaid argument, the learned counsel for
the respondent/plaintiff submits that it is trite that nobody can
acquire title of property on the basis of an unregistered document.
The present petitioners/defendants have already filed a suit for
specific performance vide O.S.No.2517 of 2023 seeking specific
performance of the agreement allegedly entered in the year 2002.
The said suit will be dismissed because it is barred by limitation
MANU/AP/0813/2023
SP, J
CRP_1653_2024
and an unregistered document cannot fetch any result. Apart
from this, it is submitted that in view of the judgments in Asha
Rani Gupta vs. Sri Vineet Kumar 2 and Mohd. Raza Vs. Geeta
alias Geeta Devi 3, the Court below has taken a plausible view.
Thus, no interference can be made.
5. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the
parties.
6. Heard, at length and perused the record.
7. The relevant portion of findings of the Court below is
reproduced for ready reference:
9. In Asha Rani Gupta vs. Sri Vineet Kumar (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the proposition of denial
of title of plaintiff and denial of relationship of landlord and
tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, such a denial
simpliciter does not and cannot absolve the lessee/tenant to
deposit the due amount of rent/damages for use and
occupation, unless he could show having made such payment
in a lawful and bonafide manner.
10. In Mohd. Raza and another vs. Geeta alias Geeta Devi
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex court observed that plea of tenant
that concerned person is absolute owner of property and also
filed suit for specific performance against plaintiff. Filing of
suit is clear admission regarding ownership of plaintiff.
Defendant cannot be said to be owner till passing of decree of
specific performance in her favour and will be continued as
tenant only. Therefore, statement regarding ownership of
2022 (4) ALT (SC) 97 (SB)
AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4826
SP, J
CRP_1653_2024
plaintiff in written statement rightly treated as admission of
defendant and passing of decree on admission, proper.
11. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner/plaintiff
filed the suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and
damages against the respondents/defendants. Along with the
suit, the petitioner/plaintiff field the present application
seeking to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of rent of
Rs.61,800/- from April 2022 to April 2023 @ Rs.5,150/- per
month along with future admitted rents of Rs.5,150/- per
month from May, 2023 till the disposal of the above suit. The
petitioner to prove his case, got marked Exs.P1 to P14
documents.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants did not
dispute the fact that the defendants have filed aforesaid suit for
specific performance which is pending for consideration. The
Supreme Court, in the case of Mohd. Raza (supra) held as
under:
"8. ...Thus from the aforesaid, it is clear that the defendants
are claiming the ownership of the suit property. The
defendant No.2 is claiming to be in possession as an owner
and claiming to be the owner. It can also be seen that the
plaintiff has filed the suit as an owner. It is not in dispute
and even it is the case on behalf of the defendants that
defendant No.2 had instituted the suit for specific
performance against the plaintiff with respect to the suit
schedule property, meaning thereby there is a clear cut
admission that the plaintiff is the owner".
9. The Court below in para No.14 of the impugned order placed
reliance on the judgment in the case of Mohd. Raza (supra) and
opined that the factum of filing of the suit for specific
performance itself shows that plaintiff is the landlord.
SP, J
CRP_1653_2024
10. At this stage of deciding an application under Order XV-A
Rule 1 of CPC, it is not necessary for the Court below to
search for clinching evidence. The prima facie tentative
material to establish jural relationship is sufficient to invoke
Order XV-A Rule 1 of CPC.
11. In the instant case, in the light of judgment of Supreme
Court in the case of Mohd. Raza (supra) factum of filing of
suit for specific performance by the petitioners/defendants
provide such prima facie material for the Court below to
invoke Order XV-A Rule 1. The Court below has taken
plausible view which does not warrant any interference by
this Court. The interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution can be made if orders are passed by Court
without any competence, proved to be illegal or perverse in
nature. Another view is possible, is not a ground for
interference (see Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra
Shankar Patil 4). In the absence of any ingredients on which
interference can be made, interference is declined.
(2010) 8 SCC 329
SP, J
CRP_1653_2024
12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous
applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
Date: 08.08.2024
FM/GVR
