The High Court · 2025

Order

-}t- J LNA, J CRP.No.3l l9 of 2024 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Civil Ilevision Petition No.3 I 19 of 2024 ORDER: This Revision js filed assailing the order dated 30.07.2021 passed in IA.No.492 of 2022 in OS.No.58g of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar, whereunder and whereby the application filed b1, the petitioners under.Order XII Rule 6 CpC was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, leamed senior counsel appearir.rg for Sri A.Muneendhar Reddy, reamed counse r-on-record for petitioners, and Sri L.Venkateshwar Rao, rearned counser for respondents.

3. In nLrt-shell tle facts of the case, shom otf Lrnnecessary details, ns aver.red by the petitioners in the plaint are that thev are absolute owner.s of \ illa No.15, Villa Creens. sitr-rated ar Gandipet, Rajendranagar I!1andal, Ranga Reddy District (her.einafter r.etbrred to as 'subject villa') having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.7726 of 2022 dated 16.01i.2022; that their- predeces sors_in_title leased the subject Villa to respondents for residential purpose undet. lease agreements dated 4 LNA, J CRP.No.3l l9 of 2024

04.12,2013, 09.01.2016, 10.04.201 8 and 01.\2.2018, rhe last of which expired on 14.12.2019; and thereafter, the lease period was not extended, however, the respondents requested tirxe upto March, 2022 to vacate the sub.ject Villa, but they did not do so and further, they also defaulted in payrnent of rnonthly rents and maintenance charges and taking advantage of Covid-I9 pandemic and on continued persuasion, the respondents gave an Undertaking dated

25.06.2020 promising to vacate the subject Villa shortly. However, the respondents without adhering to the said Undertaking, filed OS.No.179 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar and obtained injunction.

3.1 . It was furlher averred that the pred ecessor.s- in-title of the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 13.09.202 I calling upon the respondents to vacate the subject Vitla, f-ailing which, they at-e liable to pay damages @ Rs.),00,000/- per month, however, the said notice was returned with endorsement 'party absent continuously for seven days'; that the petitioners purchased the subject Villa on the assurances given by the respondents to their predecessors-in-title to vacate the subject Villa, however, the respondents did not vacate the subject Villa as per the Undertaking \\ \ -'7 -7 5 LNII, J (RP.No.3l l9 of 2024 given by thern anrl as such, the petitioners also got issLred legal notice dated 08.08.2022 to the respondents to vacate and handover the subject Villa on or before 20.08.2022., failing which, the respondents shall be liable to pay damages @ Rs. 1,00,000i- per month from 01.102021; that the respondents got issued a reply notice dated 10.09.2022, to which, the petitioners have got issued a rejoinder notice daled 20.09.2022.It was further averued that since the possession of the subject Villa by the respondents became illegal and unauthorized, the petitioners filed OS.No.58g of 2O2Z seeking to evict the respondents and to put the petitioners tn vacant possession o1'rhe sLrbject Villa; to direct the responclents to pav damages @ Ils.1.00,000/- per rnonrh li.om 01.10.202 I till the date of filing of the suit j.e.,30.09.2022, totalling to Rs.12,00,0()0/-, erc. 1. The respondents entered appearance in the suit and flled written statement. While so, during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed IA.\o.492 of 2022 under Order XII Rule 6 CpC to pass judgment and decree, based on the admission ntade b1, respondents, insofar. as the relief of eviction is concernecl. In the said application, the petitioners reiterated the averments made in theqlaint and praved to allow the application. 6 LNA, J CRP.No.31 I9 oI 2024

5. The respondents filed counter denying the allegations and averments made in the affidavit, filed in suppoft of the application, and further averred that they are in possession of subject Villa since 201 3 and as thele was sonle differences of opinion with the pred ecessors- in-title of the petitioners, they filed a suit in OS.No.l7O of 2020 along with IA.No.3 of 2020 and obtained interirn injunction restraining the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners from interfering with their peaceful possession of the subject Villa without following due process of law. It was further contended that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners have orally agreed to extend the lease for a further period of three years

from June, 2022 and they have also promised to give first option to buy the subject Villa to the respondents, if the latter intends to sell the same, but, contrary to the said promise, the predecessors-in-title ol the petitioners have sold the subject Villa to the petitionels

5.1. The respondents fulther averred that thele is no default in payment of rnonthly rents, as alleged by the petitioners, and the rents were paid upto August, 2022 and in fact, the same were also received and hence, prayed to dismiss the application 7 LNA, J CRP.No..l I l9 of 2024

6. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 3{t.07.2024 dismissed the said application with observation that the application cannot be allowed based on the sole ground of admission of ownership of the petitioners over the subject Villa, since the other f-acts such as rents and damages payable towards the subject Villa are not admitted by the respondents. The trial Court furlher observed that the relief of recovery of possession is interlinked rvith other relevallt f acts which rvor-rld be conclLrded and adjudicated afier lull-1)edged trial olthe suit. Aggrieved b1,the said order, the present Revision is filed.

7. Learned seniol counsel appearing for revision petitioners submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application rvith perverse observations and without properly appreciating the intent and application of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. He further submitted that the observation of the trial Court that the relief of recovery of possession is interlinked to other relevant facts and the same would be concluded only after full-fledged trial is contrary to the settled principle propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pttyttl Vision Lkt Vs. Rodhika Choutlhuryt, u,herein it is helcl that in a suit lbr recoverl' of possession 1'rom a tenant, rvhose tenancy is '(2012) 11 scc 4os 8 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 not protected under the provisions of Rent Control Act, the plaintiff has to only establish the existence ofjural relationship of landlord and tenant and termination of tenancy by lapse of time or by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was further obserwed that once these two aspects are not in dispute, the Court can pass a decree in tenns of Order XII Rule 6 CPC 7 .1 . Learned senior counsel fur-ther submitted that the contention of respondents that the predecessors-in -title of the petitioners have orally agreed to extent the lease for a furlher period of three years from June, 2022, is untenable in the light of the Undertaking dated 25.06.2020 given by the respondents plomising to vacate the subject Villa shortly. He fufther. submitted that the contention of the respondents that the predecessors-in-title of petitioners promised to given first option to buy the subject Villa to the respondents is not supported by any document and IS contrary to Sections 107 and 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and Section l7(lA) of the Registration Act. He further subrnitted that as respondents have grossly violated their own prolnise to vacate the sub.ject Villa by March, 2020, alier expiry of lcase pcriod on l4.ll.2019 and also in view of adn.rission made by / --- 9 LNA, J CRP.n*u.31 l9 of 2024 respondents in OS.No. 179 of 2020, the trial Court ought to hate decreed the suit in ierms of Order XII Rule 6 CpC. 8. To buttress his submissions, leamed senior counsel appearing for rer jsion petitioners relied upon the fbllowing jLrdgments of the H,:n'ble Supreme Court:- (1) Utnm Singlt Duggol & Co. Lttt. Vs. United Bonk oJ. Indirr und olh ersl (2) Ashok Kumur Boggo Vs. Rajvinder Kau13 (3) Payal Vision Ltd Vs. Radhika Choutlharya (4)Rajiv Ghosh Vs. Satya Naroyan Jaiswals 6)ITDC. Lttl Vs. Chander pal Sootl & son6

9. Per contra, leamed counsel for respondents submitted that the predecessors-in- title of the petitioners have orally agreed to extend the lease penod for a period of three years tiom June, 2022 and also received rents fiom lune,2022 to August, 2022, therefore. the previous alleged adrnission made by the respondents that they would r''acate the :;ubject Villa has no r.elevance. He tunher submitted that the predecessors- in-title of the petitioner-s have '? (2ooo) 7 scc 120 'r"lANU/DE/0681/2021 " (2012) 11 SCC 40s 5 2025 SCC Ontine sc 75l V0o0 (s3) DRJ (DB) IO I,NA, ,I CRP.No,.l I l9 ol 2024 offered to give first option to the respondents if the subject Villa is offered for sale and contrary to the said plomise, they sold tl.re subject Villa to the petitioners behind the back of the respondents and further, the respondents are not even aware of the said transaction and there is no attomment of tenancy and as such, the application filed by the petitioners is misconceived and as such, the trial Courl has rightly dismissed the application.

9. L Leamed counsel for respondents further submitted that the respondents disputed rent and damages payable towards the subject Villa, therefore, the trial Court has rightly observed that the said issues can be decided or.rly after full-fledged trial and disrnissed the application, and the petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the irnpugned order and hence, prayed the Court ro dismiss the Revision.

10. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprerne Court passed in S.M.Asd Vs. Virender Kumar Baiai,T wherein it is held that the words 'may' and 'make such order. '.'' in Order XII Rule 6 CPC show that the power under Order XII nulo'o/CpC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of ' AIR 2015 scc 3678 t1 LNA, J CRP.No..t I l9 of 2024 right and that the j udgment rendered based on admission is not a rnatter of right and rather is a matter of discretion ol the Courr. The Hon'ble Suprerr.re Court further observed that where the def-endants have raised objections wl.rich go to the root of the case, it u,ould not be appr.opriate to exercise the discretion r-rnder Or.der XIt Rule 6 CPC.

11. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the submissions made by leamed counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

12. There is no dispute regarding jural relationship of landlord and tenant betrveen the predecessors-in-title of the-petitioners and the respondents, Admittedly, the lease period of the subject Villa encled by Novenrber, 2019, however, on oral requests, the respondents were allowed, by the predeiessors- in-title of the petitioners, to continue to be in occupation of the subject Villa till March, 2020. Subsequently, the respondents failed to vacate the subject Villa and hence. on continuous persuasion, the respondents have given an Undertaking letter dated 25.06.2020 promising to vacate the subject Villa shortly, but, they failed to adhere to the same and continued to be in occupation of the subject villa. while 12 I,NA, J CRP.No..1 I l9 of 2024 so, the sub.iect Villa was purchased by the petitioners through registered sale deed dated 16.06.2022, who, in turn, issued legal notice dated 08.08.2022 to the respondents calling upon them to vacate the sub.iect Villa, to which, the respondents have issued reply notice dated 10.09.2022 and the petitioners have issued rejoinder dated 20.09.2022 to it. In those circumstances, the petitioners filed the application to pass judgment based on the admission made by respondents insofar as eviction is concerned.

13. It is the specific case of the petitioners that when there is no dispute with regard to jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners and the respondents and further, when the respondents have admitted that the predecessors-ir.r-title of the petitioners are the true owners of the subject Villa, the petitioners having purchased the subject Villa lor valid consideration under registered sale deed have stepped into the shoes of their predecessors and acquired all the rights in respect of the subject Villa.

14. It is relevant to note that in the written statement, though the respondents have taken a specific plea that the predecessors-in- title of the petitioners have promised to give first option to them in l3 LN,,I, J (.RP.,\'u..1 I l9 o1 2024 case they intend to sell the subject Villa, except the said mere assertion. no matel'ral is placed on record in suppott thereoL

15. On the other hand, the petitioners are relying upon the Undertaking letter dated 25.06.2020 given by rhe respondents, wherein they undertook to vacate the subject Villa shortly and further, the legal notice dated 13.09.2021 issued by their predecessors-in-title.

16. It is settled principle of law that by sale of property by the lessor to a third party, the tenancy of lessee gets attorned to the purchaser of the properry and the lessee cannot deny the jr_rral relationship of landlord and tenant on the groLrnd that he/she is not aware of transt-er of property in favour of a third party. 11 . In the present case, registered sale deed dated 16.06.2022 was executed in favour of the petitioners by the lessors of the respondents, consequently, the tenancy stood attorned to the petitioners, and pursuant thereto, the petitioners have also got issued legal notice ro the respondents on 08.08.2022, to which the respondents have got issued a reply notice and funher, the petitioners also issued rejoinder to the respondents on 20.09.2022. 14 a) LNA, J CRP.No.3l l9 of 2024 which clearly show that there is jural relationship of Iandlord and tenancy between them.

18. Further, adnrittedly, the lease period expired on 14 1 1.2019, however, the respondents corrtinued to be in occupation of the subiect Villa till March,2020. and on repeated denlands by the lessors to vacate the subject Village, the respondents have giver.r an Undertaking letter dated 25.06.2020 prornising to vacate the subject Villa shortly therefrom. This shows that the respondents are not protected under the Rent Control Act. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Payal Vision Lttl's case (cited supra) squarely applies to the present.ur. ur, the facts ofthe said case are similar to the facts of the present case.

19. However, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supretne Court in S.M.Asif scase (cited supra) relerred to and relied upon by learned counsel for respondents has no application to the present case as the facts and circutnstance of the said case are entirely different from the facts of the present case. In the said case, the tenant has taken plea that an agreement of sale was entered by the landlold and he has paid a sutn of Rs.82.5 lakhs as advance and a suit for specific performance was also filed. However, in the present case, J' -r' I I - l5 LNA, J CRP.No..t 119 of 2024 no such plea has been taken by the respondents except the contention that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners have promised to give first option to them in case of sale of the subject propefty.

20. [n the present suit, there is no dispute that the respondents filed a suit in OS.No.179 of 2020 and have admitted the relationship ol landlord and tenant between them and the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners. In the counter-afll davit filed in IA.No.492 of 2022, rhe respondents did not deny such jural relationship, however, thev have taken a plea that the predecessors_ in-title of the petitioners have orally extended the lease period tiom lune,2022 to another period ofthree years. 21-.. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners purchased the subject Villa under registered sale deed and the respondents have not disputed the validity of the said document.

22. Leamed counsel for respondents specifically contended that there is attornment by tenants, i.e., the respondents, therefor.e, the petitioners are not entitled to seek the relief of recoverv of possesslon. 16 s LNA,.1 CRP.Nq.31l9 of 2024 23 . As regards attomment by tenants, there are catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are as hereunder:

24. In Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta Vs. Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogul and otherss, when an identical question as regards attomment by tenant has came up for consideration, tl.re Hon'ble Suprenre Cour-t, it has held as heleunder. - "lt is v'ell setlled that a transferee of a Londlord's rigltts slep.s inlo the shoes of the landlord with all llte righls and liobiliti.es of the trans.fbror landlord in. respect of tlte subsisting tenancy. Section 109 of Transfer of Properly Acl does not require thal lhe transfer of the right of the landlord could take ffiu only if the tenant atlorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer lhe validity of the transfer of the landlord."

25. In Ram Saran Sharma Vs. Smt..Kamla Acharyae, the High Court of Rajasthan, reiterated the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta's case (cited supra) and held as hereunder:- "Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act does not require service of nolice on tenant, on alienation of proper\),. to creole relalionship of landlord and /en.ant hetureen lronsferree londlord and existing tenanl. Once '(1997) 5 scc 329 'g 200 t (2) RLR 136 ,, - l7 LNA, J CRP.No..l l 19 oJ 2024 title of assignee is complete, the attornment is autonrutic ,tnc{ not dependent on tenant's attorning or agreeing to the altornment. As regarcls lhe law of attorment, envisaged under,9ection )A9 of the Act of 1882, it is held llrut Sectiort 109 of the saicl Act does not reqLtire servic'e of notice on the tenont, on alienotion oJ' property, lo c'reute relotionship o/ lctndlord ancl tenunt between tlrc transferee landlord ond the existing tenctnt. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and pos.re.rs all the rights, tuhich the transferor has and lhe attorment i.; not a condition precedent, to give validtryt lo the trans-fbr made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act o;f I882 specifically provides that a trans/br of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the intere.yts, which the tansferor is capable of passing in the properf,t, including the legal incidents thereof and such irtcidents include the rents and profits thereLtf. Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attomlnenl .'s automatic not dependent on the tenant,s attorning ot agreeing to the attomment.

26. in the instant case, the petitioners are the bona fide pr-rlchasers ol the sLrbject Villa tiom thc lessors ol the r.esponclents. 'I'herefbre, in the light of the afbresaid jLrdgments of the Hon,ble Supreme Court, in tl.re instant case, it is to be held that the petitioners stepped into the shoes of their vendors, l.e lessors of l8 I,NA,.I CRP. No.-l I l9 rtf 2024 the respondents with all rights and liabilities of their vendors in respect of the subsisting tenancy of the subject Villa and that as the title of petitioner is complete, the attomment by tenant is not necessary to confer the vatidity of transfer and the attomment is autornatic and not dependent on tenant's attoming or agreeing to the attornment. Thus, the contention of leamed counsel for respondents that without attomment by tenants, the petitioners are not entitled to relief of recovery ofpossession ofsubject Villa holds no water and shatters to ground

27. Further, it is apt to rlote that in the counter, though the respondents adrnitted that they have givetl Urlderlaking letter

25.06.2020 rvhereunder they promised to vacate the subject Villa shortly, they resited fron.r the same by taking a stand that their lessors have orally agreed to extend the lease for a further period of three years from June, 2022, and as such, the Undertaking letter dated 25.06.2020 has no relevance.

28. Thus, it is evident that there is termination of tenancy as early as on I 4. I 1 .2019, since the lease agreement has expired by Iapse of time, however, the respondents have continued to squat over the subject Villa on the premise that the predecessors-in-tile of -' 19 LNA, J CRP.No.3l l9 of 2024 the petitioner have orally permitted them fbr the same. It is also relevant to note that the respondents were also servecl rvith legal notices by the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners calling upon them to vacate the subject Villa. 29. lt is not out of place to note that the respondents herein filed OS.No.179 of 2020 against the lessors, wherein in the plaint they have categorically srated that they have given Undertaking letter dated 25.06.2020 to the lessors. The contents of the said Undertaking letter goes to show that the respondents herein have requested the lessors i.e., the predecessors_in-title of the petitioners to give them some more time to stay in the subject Villa and assured to vacate the house once the spread of Covid_19 virus is stopped. FLrrrher, irL the plaint in O.S.No. 119 of 2020 also, the respondents stated as hereunder: ''The plainti// hts ntotle il ver,1,c,lecrr thot he n,otrlcl vtrt,rtte, tlrc prentises onc.e the present Covid- I9 purubtnit, rec'etlcs. "

30. The above said statements made by the respondents in the suit filed by them u.ould necessarily amount to admission of the expiry of tenancy and their readiness to vacate the subject villa shortly, as undertaken by them in the letter, dated 25.06.2020. 2l) LNA, J CRP.No.j I l9 o.[ 2024 Therefole, these admissions of the respondents attract the provision of Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

31. For bettet' appreciation, it is appropriate to extract Order XII Rule 6 CPC as hereunder:- " Judgmenl on admissions (l) Where admissions of fuct have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing' the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without v,aiting for the determination of any other clueslion between the parties, make such order or give such jutlgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. "

32. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that admissiot.t of fact can be eithel in pleadings or otherwise or trlay be orally or in rvriting.

13. Thelelore. based on the alorcsaid adlnissiorls rnadc by respondents in the pleadings avet'red in plaint filed in OS'No' 179 of 2020, the Court tlay pass judgrnent based on such adrnission' However, the trial Coud has failed to take into account the same and erred in dismissir.rg the application filed by the petitioners under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. When the last of lease deeds and the underlaking letter, dated 25.06.2020 given by respondents goes to show that tenancy expired and the same was admitted by the ,l /): { 7 2t LNA. J CRP.No.3l l9 oJ.2()24 respondents in their pleadings averred in the plaint in oS.No.179 ot' 2020, the trial Court has not considered the saicl aspects and has ,erely and i, l'act, has erroneousry observed that rerief of recovel.y of possession is interlinked with other relevant reliefs/facts .,vhich v"or-rld be concluded and adjudicated only after full-fledged triar. When the legir.imate rights of the petitioners, who came to the court rvith clean hands, in respect of the subject viila are at stake petitioners, it is the duty of this Court to safeguard his rights and interests in t.espect thereof. 34. For. the rcregoing reasons. this Revision is allowed ancl the older darecl 30.A7.2024 passed in tA.No.zl92 of 2022 in OS.No.5gg o1'2022o, the flie of I Additional JLrnior.Civil Juclge. l{anga ILeclc11, District at Rajenclt.anagar, is hereby seL aside ancl conseqr-rently, IA.No.492 of 2012 srands allowecl. 35. Miscellaneor-rs petitions pencling, if any, shall stand closed. No costs Sd/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUry REGISTRAR d SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII I I one Fair copy to the Hon'bre Sri Justice LAXtur NARAYANA ALTSHETTY (For His Lordships Kind perusal) To

1. The I Additionar Junior civir Judge cum Xil Additionar Judiciar Magistrate of ^ First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendra Nagar. 2, 11LRCopies 3 The Under secretary, Union of rndia Ministry of raw, Justice and company Affairs. New Delhi )

4. The Secretary Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, HYderabad

5. One CC to SRl. A. MUNEENDHAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 6. One CC to SRl. L. VENKATESHWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies \ l Kullkam )nt, . .'w' t I '::: -'--::-= \,. -. lli- :, i..>\\ '' i.: l'..t 'ir'_ ' ? 5 stP 2025 HIGH COURT DATED:2210912025 I t L.R. COPY TO BE MARKED ORDER CRP.No.3119 of 2024 ALLOWING CIVIL RVISION PETITION \q 6