The High Court · 2025

...Petitioner/ Defendant AND Syed Basheeruddin, S/o Syed Maqbool Uddin, Age about. 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o 8-1 3-139/1 00/B, King Colony, Shashtripuram, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/ Defendant lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Orders passed in l.A. No 477 of 2020 in 0.S. No 228 of 2O2O dated 22"d February 2024, on the file of Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cum ll Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar, pending disposal of the C.R.P., in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN Counsel for the Respondent: SRI DHIRENDRA SINGH( Not present) The Court made the following ORDER: 1 HON,BLD SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1061 OF 20/24 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

22.A2.2024 in I.A No.477 of 2024 in O.S.No.228 of 2020 passed by the XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cumJl Adclitional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

2. Heard Sri Mohammed Adnan, learned counsel lor the petitioner. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf. of the respondent sincr. last two occasions. Therefore, the matter is being disposed of basecl on the material available on record.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent l-rerein is the defendant before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that petitioner filed O.S.No.228 of 2010 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent before XV Additional Metropolitan . Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Raiendranagar, in respect of property bearing plot No.1730 /2, n Block No.I, in Sy.No.134l20, bearing GHMC No.B-14-20/1730/2, admeasuring 375 Sq.ydr, situated at Meer Sagar, Mallardevapally Shashtripuram, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. I BLL \ I l l 2 LNA,J. CRP No.106l of 2024 N (hereafter referred as schedured property). During the pendency of the suit, petitioner filed I.A.No.477 of 2020 under order 15,A read with I section 151 of CpC to direct the respondent to pay arrears of rent from December, 201,9 to July 2020 i.e., g months amounting to Rs.1,60,00O/_ and also to pay damages and Mesne profit @ Rs.30,000/_ per month from August, 20-19. The respondent/defendant has filed counter stating that there is no jurar rerationship between the petitioner and the responden! therefore, the question of payment and receiving rents between the parties does not arise. He further contended that respondent is owner of the H.No.B _14/77j0/ 7 and whereas, petitioner is claiming ownership of the H.No.g -14/1730/2, therefore, there are no merits in the application and prayed to dismiss the said I.A. 5' The Triar court, on appreciation of pleadings and contentions, dismissed the application with following observations: "...clearly, tle respondent is taking substantial defenx of there being no existence of a jural relationship betueen the petitioner and respondent. There is no adntitted rent either, In such ciranmstances, tle existence of n jurat relatiortship can only be determined afbr a full-fletlged trial and not nt this juncture of the suit. Hence, as the respondent hns raised a substantinL defense disputing the jural relationship of landlord and tenant behoeen the petitiorcr and respondent, and. as tlere is no adnitted rent either, the relief sought by tlrc petitioner cannot be granted. 73. In the result, tlt petition is disnissed toithout cost.,, LNA,J, CRP No.106l of 2021 3

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the petitioner is the owner of the H.No.8 -14/ 1730 /):, by virtue of sale deed No.700 of 1983 anti he is also owner of the H.No.8-1a-20/7730/1, by virtue of sale det:d No. 8453/2019 dated 23.08.2019, and the respondent is claiming that he is the owner of the H.No.8-14-20/7730/2 which is the subject matter of the suit. He further contended that the trial court has failed to consicler the certified copy filed in O.S. No.l()8 of 2O2O,in I I which the respondent herein, has clearly admitted lural reiationship of owner and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. Learned I I counsel for the petitioner further submitted that ownership documents and sale deeds c.videncing ownership of the petitioner over the suit schedule property are not placed on record and therefore, liberty may be given to the petitioner to place all the relevant documents before the trial court and further prayed that for direction to the trial court to dispose of all the applications by duly considering the material placed on record.

7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the facts and circurnstances of the case this court is of considered view that the ma tter can be remanded back to the trial court for fresh adjudication. I 4 8. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of setting aside n LNA.J CRP No.t06l of 2024 the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 and the matter is remanded back to the trial ,court for fresh adjudication. The trial court shall dispose of the applications filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties and duly considering the material placed on record. There shall be no order as to costs. To Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. /ITRUE COPYI/ SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER '1. The Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate cum ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar

2. One CC to Sri lvlohammad Adnan, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Dhirendra Singh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies N,-- HIGH COURT DATED:Z11O3t2025 ORDER CRP.No.1061 ot2024 DISPOSING OF THE CTVIT, REVISION PETTTION a r,. 0 2 ||iAi 2[25 o {) a iPATC I L \ l L