Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 124 (AP)

S. Habeeb v. M. F. Shahanaz

2013-02-21

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
JUDGMENT : 1. The 3rd petitioner is the wife of late Anwar Saheb and petitioners 1 and 2 are their children. The petitioners filed O.S.No.260 of 2009 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, against the respondents herein for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule premises. It was pleaded that late Anwar Saheb was granted patta in respect of the property and when disputes arose with the Madanapalle Municipality, he filed O.S.No.242 of 1991 in the Court of I Additional Junior civil Judge, Madanapalle. The suit is said to have been decreed and that the appeal filed by the Municipality was dismissed. The petitioners plead that after the death of Anwar Saheb, a portion of the property was given on lease to the 2nd respondent and he stopped payment of rents in the recent past. 2. The 1st respondent is the wife of the brother of Anwar Saheb. She pleaded that Anwar Saheb made an oral gift in respect of half of the property held by him, in favour of his brother late Fazlu and after his death, she inherited the property. It was her further case that she leased the property to the 2nd respondent. The written statement filed by the 2nd respondent is also on the same lines. 3. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1577 of 2009 under Order XV-A of C.P.C. with a prayer to direct the 2nd respondent to deposit the rents for the premises. The application was opposed by the respondents by repeating their contention advanced in the written statement. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order dated 26.06.2012. Hence, this revision. 4. Heard S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Order XV-A of C.P.C. has created a special facility in favour of the lessors of immovable property and it is available only in the suits filed for termination of leases or for recovery of possession of leased premises. Howsoever strong the title of a plaintiff in a suit of other description may be, that facility is not available in it. Before claiming the relief under Order XV-A C.P.C., an applicant must establish to the satisfaction of the Court, that the respondent in the I.A. is his tenant and that he stopped payment of rents. Howsoever strong the title of a plaintiff in a suit of other description may be, that facility is not available in it. Before claiming the relief under Order XV-A C.P.C., an applicant must establish to the satisfaction of the Court, that the respondent in the I.A. is his tenant and that he stopped payment of rents. Even if the non-payment of rent is for a considerable period, it is essential that there exists proof as to payment of rent on earlier occasion. 6. In the instant case, though the petitioners pleaded that the 2nd respondent is their tenant, nothing is placed on record to substantiate it. The denial of the 2nd respondent in this behalf remained unchallenged. In clear terms, the 2nd respondent pleaded that he is the tenant of the 1st respondent. The question as to whether the 1st respondent acquired any title to the suit schedule property, needs to be examined in the suit. As of now, it cannot be said that the petitioners made out a case for grant of relief under Order 15-A C.P.C. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter. 7. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. 8. The civil miscellaneous petition filed in this civil revision petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.