Sadashiv Sawrikar v. V.Satyanarayana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON NO: 1285OF 2021 Petition under Article 227 ol the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated.20.04.2021 passed in l.A. No.413 ol 2018 in O.S. No.266 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. Between:

Sadashiv Sawrikar, S/o.

Occ.Chartered Accountant Hyderabad - 500 033.

Sri Venkatrao Plot No. 390, Sawrikar, aged 64 years, Road No.22B, Jubilee Hills, Late R:io AND

...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff

.5-8-491211, JR Mall, Floor, Sawrikar Plaza V. Satyanarayana, Sio. V. Ramaiah, aged tr/ajor, RVo Nampaily Station Road, Hyderabad - 500b01, AIdo at 1't 5-4-437, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.

...RespondenURespondenUDefendant lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent herein to pay the rental amounts pending the disposal of the Suit bearing O.S. No.266 of 2018 on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent: --- The Court made the following: ORDER

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CRP.No.L2AS OF 2O2L ORDER:

This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.2o.O4.2O21 in IA.No.413 of 2018 in OS.No.266 of 2018 of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2.

Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the above suit. 3.

He filed the said suit against the respondent for eviction from the suit schedule premises alleging that the respondent is his tenant but he defaulted in payment of rents.

4.

Respondent filed written statement taking the plea that there is no landlord and tenant relationship and that he was in possession of the subject property under an oral agreement of sale.

5. Petitioner filed IA.No.413 of 2018 invoking Order XVA CPC to direct the respondent to pay arrears of rent of Rs.4,47,185/- with a further direction to pay future rent that accrued due every month from April, 2018 @ Rs,41,687 l- in the Court on or before Sth of every succeeding month, by reiterating the contents of the plaint.

6. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondent denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.

7. In the Court below, petitioner did not mark any document, but respondent filed Ex.Rl certified copy of the judgment in OS.No.1O06 of 2Ol7 filed by the respondent before the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale.

8. After considering the respective pleas of the parties, the Court below dismissed IA.No.413 of 2018 taking note of the deniai of the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent by the respondent, and the plea of being in possession of the subject property by virtue of oral agreement of sale dt.O7.O9.2O15, but not as a tenant.

9. The Court below observed that the edstence of such relationship is to be gone into in the trial and an issue needs to be framed and considered in the suit. It also took note of the fact that Rs. 18 lakhs was paid by the respondent and his family members to the petitioner, which the petitioner claims to be an interest free security deposit, but the respondent claims it as part of the sale consideration.

::3::

10. Though counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the findings recorded by the Court below for dismissing IA.No.4i3 of 2018 are not correct and that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record, I am unable to agree with the said srrbmission.

11. The e-mail filed by the petitioner, enclosing copy of an unsigned draft lease deed, cannot pima .facie prove the existence of landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Certain rental receipts were a-lso filed by the petitioner, but whether the respondent had also signed the said receipts, is a matter to be gone into in the trial.

12. I therefore do not find any {ind error of -jurisdiction in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution.

13. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the Court below shall endeavor to dispose of the suit, uninfluenced by any cbservations made by it in the impugned order or in the order now being passed in this Revision, AS expeditiously AS possible, preferably by 31.08.2022. No order as to costs. !

14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SDA N.CHANORA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .,a- ( lr) ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad

2. One CC to Sri. A. Venkatesh, Advocate tOpUCl

3. Two CD Copies

4. One Spare Copy lVl\,'lK TP 9.- I

HIGH COURT DATED: 2510812021 t rAr{:

s (

ORDER

co SEP 2 , CRP.No.1285 of 2021 r':1;l_r1ti DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION.

y^ ,a\o'

\ur Aw