The High Court · 2025

...Appel lants/Appel lants/Defendants ...RespondenURespondenUPlaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Order XLI Rule 5 R/w Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in E. P. No .222 of 2022 in O.S.No.302 of 2008. on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Prasanth Nagar.rncluding eviction of the petitioner from the EP schedule property, pending disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant :SRl P SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SRINIVAS MANTHA The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURAI}LE SMT. JUSTI(]E RENI]KA YARA SEC-OND APPEAL No.4l3 of 2025 .IUDGNIE,NT: lleard Sri l). Subash, Iearrcd counsel lirr the appe llants/de fendants and Sri Srinivas Mantha, leamed counsel lor respondent/plaintiff, on admission. Perused the re'cord

2. 'l his Second Appcal is prct'erred aggrieved by the judgrnent and decree dated 22.07.2025 in A.S.No.7 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally ('First Appellate Court'), confirrning the.iudgment and decree dated 03.12.2018 in O.S.No.302 of 2008 on the file ol the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy f)istrict ('Trial Court') rvherein the suit filed seeking eviction and rnesnc prot-its. has been decrecd. l. 'l'he suit in O.S.No.302 of 2008 was trled bv the respondent against the appellants herein. In said suit, the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and no evidence is led by the appellants herein. Therefore, on the basis ot'evidence adduced by the respondent, the suit was decreed directing the appellants herein to vacate the suit premises and to pay an amount of Rs.52,826/- towards arrears of rent. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal in ./ RY.J sn 4ri 2025 A.S.No.7 of 2019 was pret-erred before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Couft confirmed the -judgnrcnt and decrce passed by the l'rial Court. Challenging the sanrc, the prcsct appeal is prelerred raising the following substantial queslions ol la\\. l. Whether the Courts below errcd in law by failing to properly interpret and apply the provisions of the Rent Control Act, 1948 (or relevant State Rerrt Act). thereby ignoring the statutory protection allbrded to the tenant against eviction, particularly in the absence ofa bonaflde requirernent or valid ground under the Act?

4. The issue is between landlorcl and tenants. .l he appellants herein have taken the premises on lease lionr respondent company for running a coffee centre in the year 1999 under Memorandum ol understanding dated

08.05.1999 lBx.A9. Fresh Menrorandurn of' understanding was entered on

16.05.2001/Ex.A l0 and the appellants conlinucd with lease and thereafter suit for eviction was llled in the'ycar'1008 bv issuing a legal notice dated

18.03.2008/Ex.A6 tenninating thc tenancy. ln said sr-rit, the appellants have admitted the jural relatiorrship ol- lancllord ancl tenanl but denied default in payment of rents. Ilaving filed written statenlent, the appellants herein failed to enter the witness box to supporl thcir pleadings. On the basis ol evidence of PWI and Exs.Al to Al0 consisting of Ilx.Al/Attested copy of Geq[ificate of incorporation dated lr1.04.1997, Ex.A2lCopy of Board 2 RY.J sA 4l r 2025 Resolution dated l(r. I 1.2001 and rninutes ol meeting held on 22.11.2011, Ex.A3/'l'rue copy ol- Memorandum ol understanding, Ex.A4lCertified copy o1'order dated 07.06.2007 issued bv AJCJ. I{.R.District. Er.A5/Certified copy ol- sratcment of accounts dared 0l .04.2008 to 10.07.2008, Ex.A610fllce copy of legal notice dated t 8.03.2008. Ex.A7lPostal ackrou'ledsmcnl in respect of Ex.A6, Ex.A8/Unserved postal cover with an cndorserrcnt 'not claimed', Ex.A9lMemorandum ot' understanding entered into betwcen L& f Infb City Limited, Hyderabad and Ratlha Foods and Beverases dated 08.05.1999 and Ex.A l0/Memorandum ol unde.rstancling cntered into between L&T tnfb (lity I.imited. Hyderabad and Radha Foods and Beverages, dated 16.05.2001, the suit has been declecd. l he samc has been conllrrned by the [rirst Appellate Court -s. The concurrent finding of facts by the Triat Coun and the First Appcllate ('oLrrt cannot be lookcd into in a Second Appcal. As per .iudgrnent ol'thc [.lon'ble Supreme' Court ol India in Hemavathi v. V Hombegowdar, w'hen there is no evidence on the part ol'the. appellants herein. uhe'n the I'acts stated by the respondent are unchalleneed. there can be no question of dispute either with respect to facts or questions of law. I (202s) s scc 442 3 RY..I sA 4r3 2025 As such, there are no Inerits in the Second Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. ln the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, ilany, pending shall stand closed. Sd/. V. KAVITHA EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ S CTION OFFICER To, Naoar 1 . The Vl Additional Distrrct Judge' Rangareddy P':.t|.':l3t i. iii" inoJiii"nat Junior CJill-r;'s". c"yoerauia, Kukatpallv at Prasanth a <j"E Cc to sRl P suBASH Advocate [oPUc] . - - , ^. ; 5;; aa io snr snrr'rlvns MANrHA Advocate [oPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies Kukatpally ADI(SA Y,( \ 4 HIGH COURT DATED:2311012025 JUDGMENT SA.No.413 of 2025 t * DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS a(9 QEA wN