M/S Leela Enterprises v. Smt.Kamar Sultana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.524 OF 2014 ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 16-07-2013 in I.A.No.511 of 2013 in R.A.No.90 of 2013 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

2. Petitioners herein are the tenants, whereas the respondent herein is the landlord.

3. Respondent herein filed R.C.No.200 of 2007 before the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad for deposit of fair rent at Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of petition. The learned Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, vide order, dated 03-06-2013 allowed the said petition by fixing fair rent at Rs.4,500/- per month. Challenging the same, petitioners herein filed R.A.No.90 of 2013 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Along with the said appeal, petitioners herein filed I.A.No.511 of 2013 seeking to suspend the operation of the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, dated 03-062013. The lower appellate Court, vide impugned order, dated 16-07-2013 granted stay of all proceedings in pursuance of the order, dated 03-06-2013 in R.C.No.

20 of 2007 on the file of Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad on condition that the petitioners shall deposit 50% of the enhanced rent in court deposit from the date of filing of the petition and also future rents on or before 10th of every month and the respondent is at liberty to withdraw the rent deposited by the petitioners. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.

4. It is not in dispute before this Court that the respondent herein filed R.C. for fixation of fair rent at Rs.8,000/- per month. The learned Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, vide order, dated 03-06-2013, fixed the fair rent at Rs.4,500/- per month. In the appeal by the petitioners herein, the petitioners were asked to deposit 50% of the amount and the respondent herein was permitted to withdraw the said rent. In the circumstances, this Court has no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small

Causes Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.511 of 2013 in R.A.No.90 of 2013. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision shall stand closed.

_______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J DATED: 23-11-2015 Hsd