Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 541 (TS)

Sawanraj Yadav v. R. Gajanand Yadav

2024-08-08

SUJOY PAUL

body2024
ORDER : Sujoy Paul, J. 1. 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 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 MANU/AP/0813/2023, 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 and an unregistered document cannot fetch any result. 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 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 2022 (4) ALT (SC) 97 (SB) and Mohd. Raza Vs. Geeta alias Geeta Devi AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4826, 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 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. 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. 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 (2010) 8 SCC 329 ). 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 (2010) 8 SCC 329 ). In the absence of any ingredients on which interference can be made, interference is declined. 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.