The High Court · 2025

M/s. Shakti Stee s, Rep.by it's Managino partner Sri. V.purushotham Reddv S/o.Late^V. lndra Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Villa No.25', Luxura Green's.Bowenpally, Secunderabad, Telangana State. ... Revision Petitioner/RespondenUDefendant AND M.Pushpal Reddy S/o. Late M.Narayana Reddy, Proprietbr of Bhaiat Fabricators, Ryo,tt.tto. tZSlg Secunderabad, Telangana State. Aged about 75 years, Occ , Plassylain, Bowenpally, ... RespondenUPetitioner/Plaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 202'.\ Petition under Section 151 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 Order daled 31-7 -2023 in LA.No.177 of 2023 in O.S No.1884 of 2023 passed by lll Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum XIV Additional Metropolitan l\4agistrate, Ivledchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally pending disposal of the main Civil Revision petition. IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in o.s.No.1884 of 2o2l on the file of lll Additional Junior Civil Judge Cunr XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, {\I edchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally pending disposal of the main Civil Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioners in both CRPs :Sri Garlapati Jithender Reddy Counsel for the Respondents in both CRPs : V S Sudhakar The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Civil Revision PetitionN .2331 and 2348 of 2O23 COMMON ORDER: Since both the Civil Revision Petitions raise common issue, and the respondent in both these cases being common, both the CRPs are being disposed of by this common order.

2. C.R.P.No.2331 of 2023 is filed by the defendant in the suit aggrieved by the order dt.31.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.144 of 2023 in O.S.No.1BB5 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, lvledchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. The aforesaid suit is filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff for eviction of the petitioner/defendant and for mesne profits.

3. C.R.P.No.234B of 2023 is filed by the defendant in the suit aggrieved by the order dt.31.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.177 of 2023 in O.S.No.1BB4 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-XiV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. The aforesaid suit is filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff for eviction of the petitioner/defendant and for mesne profits,

4. The respondent in both the CRPs is the petitioner in the underlying interlocutory applications and plaintifF in the above suits before the trial Court. -t I 2

5. The respondent herein had filed the subject interlocutory applications, viz., LA.Nos.!44 and 177 of 2023 in O.S.Nos.1gB5 and 1BB4 of 2023, respectively, against the petitioners herein under Order XV-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (for short, 'cPC') against the revision petitioners/respondents/defendants in the suits to strike of the defence, as they failed to pay the rent amounts since

13.01.2020.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.S.Sudhakar, learned counsel on caveat For the respondent in C.R.p.No.Z33l of 2023 and perused the record.

7. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the petitioners herein initially have taken on lease the suit schedule property consisting of 1600 and 1080 square feet for a period of 5 years and 2 years, respectively, from the respondent herein, who is described as the owner/landlord of the subject land, by entering into rental agreements, commencing from 1999 and 2012; that the leases were renewed from time to time and the last rental deeds were executed on 11.07.2018; and that the petitioners herein had paid rents till January, 2020. B. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that originally the Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, by order dt.10.01.1963 had leased out Acs.47.O0 guntas of land .r'/ // ,// ./ 3 in Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District, to the Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited (CIE), Balanagar, for a period of 51 years for the purpose of developing an industrial estate by entering into lease agreements; that on coming to know that the respondent herein is not the real owner of the subject land, inasmuch as the land belongs to the Government of Tetangana, the petitioners stopped paying rents; and that the original lease of 51 years granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by order dt.10.01.1963 having expired on 31.12.2025 and the Government by proceedings dt.13.02.2016 having directed the Commissioner to the General Manager of TSIIC and MRO/Tahsildar to resume possession of the subject land, the respondent cannot claim himself to be the owner of the subject land leased out to the petitioners for him to claim rents from the petitioners.

9. Petitioners further contend that the respondent herein had illegally possessed the land/plot bearing A-19 forming part of CIE, Balanagar, which is subject matter of L.G.O.P.No.552 of 19BB on the file oF the Prlncipal District ludge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petition filed by the respondent herein to implead himself in the aforesaid O.P., was dismissed and the said order having been confirmed up to the Supreme Court, the respondent cannot continue to claim himself to be the land/owner of the subject property for the petitioners herein to pay the re nts. 4

10. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Couft below without considering the aforesaid aspect of the respondent not being the owner/landlord of the subject property, cannot maintain the suit for eviction of the petitioners herein, much less for the mesne profits including the underlying applications filed under brOer XV-R read with Section 151 CPC for striking of defence of the petitioners herein for non- payment of rents under the last lease agreement dt.11.07.201g.

11. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the Court below without taking note of the subsequent events of the respondent not having any valid title to the subject plot/land, however, by the impugned order passed in the underlying applications directed the petitioners herein to deposit undisputed amount/rent @ Rs.33,600/- per month totaling to Rs.99,300/- with a further direction to the petitioners herein to deposit rent for the subsequent period @Rs.36,300/- by 7h of every month, in default the defence of the petitioners would be struck off.

12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

13. At the outset, it is to be noted that the revision petitioners herein have taken respective plots from the respondent herein on rent by entering into a rental agreements, whereby the respondent herein has been described as the owner/landlord. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners herein admitting to the title of the respondent had paid rents at 5 least till January, 2020, in a sum of Rs.36,300/-. Though, on behalf of the petitioners before the Court below it was sought to be contended that the monthly rent under the rental agreements was in a sum of Rs.33,000/- only, the Court below taking note of the endorsements made in the rental agreement, of another amount of Rs.3,300/- by way of cash under the signature of the petitioners and the respondent herein had held that the rent payable to be in a sum of Rs.36,300i- per month.

14. The petitioners have disputed the title of the respondent herein to the subject property taken on lease by them, on the ground that the original lease of the total extent of land admeasuring Acs.47.00 guntas wherein the subject plot is situated having expired in the year 2015 and the Government having taken back the possession of the subject land, thus, the respondent cannot continue to claim to be the owner. However, it is to be noted that considering the request received from the society formed by the owners of industrial units, the Cooperative Industrial Estate had issued proceedings, vide Memo dated 29.08.2022, instructing the Director of Industries, Hyderabad, to take further action as to the categorizatlon of units operating in the three industrial estates into two categories, and fixing the rates for the two categories of units as specified in the aforesaid memo.

15. Though on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the aforesaid regularisation proceeding by the Government in favour of the 1 6 original allottees having been stayed by this court in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.A.No.634 of 2023, it is to be noted that the challenge in the Writ Petition, videw.P.No.2B11 of 2023 and the further chailenge to the order passed therein in w.A.No.624 of 2023 is in relation to the categorization for the purpose of fixation of rates for regularisation and does not deal with the extinguishment of the right of the original allottee who had sub- let the land on allotment. Further, it is also to be noted that this court had only stayed the order in W.p.No.2BlI of 2023, whereby the Memo dt.29.08.2022 relating to categorisation of units operating in CIE Balanagar, based on the criteria specified therein was set-aside and as such the same would not advance the case of the petitioners. 16' It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners are not the original allottees. on the other hand, the petitioners have taken the subject prots on monthly rent from the respondent herein and have set up their units. Petitioners not being the original allottees and having taken the respective subject plots from the respondent herein under the rease, by questioning title of the owner/respondent, cannot be allowed to continue to be in possession of the subject land without making any payment of rent to the owner. such a course of action resorted to by the petitioners is permitted, only if the petitioners have been threatened for eviction by the permanent title holder, i.e., Government of Telangana, as being claimed by the petitioners. 7 /

77. Admittedly, the Government of Telangana through its instrumentalities did not initiate any action against the petitioners for evicting them from the subject land after taking symbolic possession of the land on 13.02.2016, on expiry of the lease tenure of 51 years by 3t.t2.2015.

18. On the other hand, the exhibits marked by the petitioners before the Court below show the petitioners having approached the Government in the year 2022 seeking regularizatibn of the land in their possession, after having obtained the same under rental agreements from the respondent herein and having set up industrial units therein.

19. It is settled position of Iaw that, a tenant who has been let into propety of the landlord cannot question the landlord's title however, defective it may be. Fufther, Section 116 ofthe Indian Evidence Act, L872, deals with the estoppel of tenants and licensees, preventing them from denying the landlord's or licensor's title during the tenancy or license period. (See S. Thangappan v/s. P, Padmauathf).

20. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of ,A.p. v/s. D.Raghukul Pershat has held that: '1rrnr1 , rJ oro ' lzorzys scc ssa I 8

7. The law is settled by this Court in D. Satyanarayna v. p Jagidislf that the tenant who has been let into possession by the landlord cannot deny the landlordb title however defective it may be, so long as he has not openly surendered possession by sutender to his land/ord.

21. Though in the facts of the present case, the petitioners herein had claimed that the respondent herein cannot be considered as owner/landlord of the subject propety, since, the original lease tenure of 51 years having expired, inasmuch as it is not shown to this Court of the prime title holder, i.e., the Government of Telanganafl-SllC having initiated any action for eviction oF the petitioners from the subject land/plot in their possession after being inducted by the respondent as tenant, the petitioners cannot be allowed to question the title of the respondent. Futher, it is also to be noted that the petitioners having approached the Government of Telanganaflsllc being the Nodal Agency for regularisation of the land in their possession, obtained on rent from the respondent herein by converting the same into free hold land in their favour cannot seek to deny the title of the respondents, till such time, the said request is accepted by the State Government/Nodal Agency, TSIIC, much less cannot claim themselves to be in legal possession of the subject land but for the rental agreements entered into by them with the respondent herein. ' 1tszt1 + scc az+ I ,/ 9

22. Fufther, the Court below also took note of the fact that the petitioners herein have been put in possession by the respondent and thus, the petitloners are estopped from denying the title of the respondent. Accordingly, the Court below has rightly allowed the underlying interlocutory applications filed by the respondent under Order XV-A read with Section 151 CPC by arriving at the above conclusion. The said conclusions arrived by the trial Court in the considered view of this Court do not suffer from any illegality or perversity for being interfered by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

23. Thus, the Civil Revision Petitions fail and are accordingly, dismissed No order as to costs.

24. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these revision petitions shall stand closed. SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, tritagistrate Medchal-lvlalkaigiri District at Kukatpally

1. The lll Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum XIV Additional Metropolitan z o.J cCt" sni cnnLnpniiiIrHENDER REDDY' Advocate [oPUC] 5. Or" CC to SRI V S SUDHAKAR, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies ADK/DLw I I HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 COMMON ORDER GRP.Nos.2331 and 2348 of 2023 1'i', n ( t dE1 a4S 17 fiPR M z o DISMISSING THE BOTH CRPs WITHOUT COST Gd"L frs'