The High Court · 2025

...Respondent / Respondent / Defendant lA NO: 'l OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pelition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs-8,61 ,5341 together with admitted monthly rent continuously till the disposal of the suit in o.s No. 886 of 2021 on the file of the court of the lV Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-special Judicial Magistrate of First class (Excise) at Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, pending disposal of the above Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner Sri P Sajan Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Bala Murali Y The Court made the following Order: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CML R-EVISION PETITION No.3455 of 2024 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Bala Murali, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. Perusal of the record would reyea_l that the petitioner and Smt. Kondla Padma W/o. Late I.ingaiah entered int.o a lease deed, dated 22.06.2019 on the specific terms and conditions with regard to the propertSr 1 e a part and partial of the commercial 4 shutters bearing H.Nos.8-6-19 & 8-6-19/A, along rvith open land of 2 guntas, situated at Kothirampur, Karimnagar District.

3. Petitioner herein has filed a suit vide O.S.No.886 of 2O2L agatnst the respondent seeking eviction. In the said suit, he has filed an interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.290 of 2023 seeking arrears of rent of Rs.8,61,534/- together with admitted mon,thly rent. The KL'J C.R.P.No.3455 of 2024 2 said I.A was dismissed on 2O.O3.2O24. Challenging the said order, petitioner f,rled the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.8-6-19/A which is part of the subject property in the lease deed. Therefore, the petitioner alone filed the aforesaid suit seeking eviction of respondent from the entire property. Without considering the said aspects, learned trial Court dismissed the said I.A. vide order, dated 2O.03 -2024. 5 Whereas, Sri Y. Bala Murali, learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner alone cannot hle the aforesajd suit. Both Smt. Kondla Padma and the petitioner herein have entered into the said lease deed with regard to the subject property. Therefore, petitioner a-lone cannot seek eviction of the respondent from the subject property. Therefore, the suit itself has to be dismissed for non joinder of the necessary parties. On consideration of the KL,J C R.P.No..t455 of 2024 3 said aspects only, learned tria-l Court disrnissed the said I.A. vide order, dated 20.03 .2024. There is no error in it.

6. Though the petitioner filed the copy of the said plaint, he has not filed the schedule of property to the said plaint. He has not filed a copy of the lease deed, dated 22.06.2019, along with revision. On pointing out of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed copy of the same along Memo vide U.S.R.No.l2i\973 ot ZOZ+, dated 13.12.2024. 7 Perusal of the said lease deed would rr:veal that the Smt. Kondal Padma and the petitioner herein entered into the aforesaid lease deed on the specilic terms and conditions mentioned therein in respect of the four shutters of the aforesaid house In the said lease deed, it is specihcally agreed that respondent being the iessee shall pay an amount of Rs. 18,OOO/_ to rsmt. Xondla Padma and Rs.23,4OO/- to the petitioner herein. But there is no mention that the petitioner herein is absolute owrler and possessor of house bearing No.B_6_ 19/t\ i.e., KL,J C.R.P.No3ass of 2024 4 three shutters along with open land admeasuring two guntas in the lease deed. It is mentioned that both the lessers are absolute owners and possessors of the subject property therein.

8. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner herein hled copy of the said lease deed. Therefore, consideration of the said aspects vide impugned order, dated 20.03.2024, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application stating that the said aspect can be considered while deciding the suit after full fledged trial. Therefore, the impugned order is reasoned order and well found. It does not deserve interference by this Court. There is no jurisdictionai error. Therefore, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. However, liberty is gralted to the petitioner and respondent to raise all the grounds which they have raised in the present civil revision petition in the suit i.e., in O.S.No.886 of 2O2L and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. No costs. KL,J C.R.P.No.:t455 of 2024 5 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To, Sd/. A.V.S, PRASAD REGISTRAR ASSIS 'tIlv\ gECTI ON OFFICER I l.ThelVAdditionalJuniorcivilJudge-cum-SpecialJudicial[\/agistrateofFirst Class (Excise) at Karimnagar 2 One CC to Sri P Sajan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Bala IVIurali Y, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies VA/gh 4. HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 ORDER CRP.No.3455 of 2024 ( f t,) 1t\e SrAIe o .D , 15 ttB 2[25 lr D5spal C DISMISSING THE CRP tgJ{'ir \