Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 712 (AP)

Mohd. Yousuf v. Rajendra Kumar Jain

2011-09-02

GHULAM MOHAMMED

body2011
Judgment : Aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2011 in I.A.No.1013 of 2010 in O.S.No.4075 of 2010 passed by the learned III-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 2. Petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The case of the respondent-plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and landlord of the Mulgi No.14-1-34/3 situated at Mangalhat, Hyderabad and the petitioner-defendant is a tenant in occupation of the said Mulgi on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/-. Since the petitioner-defendant is irregular in payment of rent, the respondent-plaintiff filed R.C.No.451 of 2007 for fixation of fair rent and that the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, by order dated 16.09.2009, directed the petitioner-defendant to pay fair rent at Rs.3,000/- per month. Against the said order, the petitioner-defendant preferred an appeal vide R.A.No.101 of 2009 before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, which was dismissed by order dated 30.06.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant has failed to pay the difference amount at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month for 33 months amounting to Rs.33,000/- and Rs.12,000/-towards rent for the months of August, September, October and November, 2010 at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S.No.4075 of 2010 for recovery of said amount of Rs.45,000/- before the III-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Along with the said suit, he filed the present I.A.No.1013 of 2010 seeking attachment before judgment against the goods of the petitioner-defendant lying in suit schedule Mulgi. The petitioner-defendant contested the said application by filing counter, inter alia, contending that he has paid entire arrears of rent to the respondent-plaintiff and that he has not committed any default in payment of rents as alleged by the respondent-plaintiff. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, by order dated 25.02.2011, directed the petitioner-defendant to furnish security for an amount of Rs.45,000/-within a period of 15 days from the date of that order and further made it clear that if he fails to furnish the said security, an order of attachment shall be issued against the goods of the petitioner-defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-defendant filed the present revision petition. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-defendant filed the present revision petition. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 4. I have perused the order under revision and other material available on record. This Court, by order dated 08.10.2010, while disposing of the C.R.P.No.4323 of 2010 filed by the petitioner-defendant, granted time to the petitioner-defendant to vacate and deliver possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondent-plaintiff till 31.07.2011. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the respondent-plaintiff has stated that since the petitioner-defendant is trying to vacate the schedule premises without clearing the arrears of rent, he sought for attachment of property of the petitioner-defendant. The contention of the petitioner-defendant is that he has paid entire arrears of rent. However, he has not filed any document before the trial Court in support of his contention. The trial Court having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documentary evidence on record, found that there is every likelihood of the petitioner-defendant shifting the articles from the petition schedule premises in order to evade payment of arrears of rent. However, while keeping in view, the interest of justice and equity, the trial Court directed the petitioner-defendant to furnish security for an amount of Rs.45,000/-within a period of 15 days from the date of that order and further made it clear that if he fails to furnish the said security, an order of attachment shall be issued against the goods of the petitioner-defendant. This Court is of the view that the reasoning assigned by the trial Court is quite legal and justified. 5. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial Court warranting interference. 6. The Civil Revision Petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed upholding the impugned order of the trial Court. No order as to costs.