Sunarkar Ramesh v. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.302

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.302, 305 AND 306 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: These revisions are directed against the orders, dated 27-01-2011, in E.A.S.R.Nos.26, 28 and 30 of 2011 in E.P.Nos.10 to 12 of 2010 in R.C.Nos.40 to 42 of 2003 respectively, on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the applications filed by the claim petitioner under Rule 23 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, to set aside the orders passed in R.C.Nos.40 to 42 of 2003, over the petition schedule property and to grant stay of all further proceedings were rejected as not maintainable.

Learned counsel appearing for the claim petitioner contended that the petitioner is a tenant since a long time and to show the same, he filed number of documents, that he is residing in the residential premises and doing business in the non-residential premises, that without his knowledge and behind his back decrees were obtained, that without giving any opportunity to let in evidence, the claim petitions of the petitioner have been rejected by the trial Court and hence, he prays to set aside the same. filed caveats appearing

Learned counsel who respondent-D.Hr contended that the claim petitioner is a close relative of the tenant who was set up after the first round of litigation with a view to drag on the matter, that absolutely, there are no merits in the petitions, that the present petitions were filed only to drag on the proceedings and hence, he prays to dismiss the revisions.

Though the claim of the petitioner is vexatious, the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to let in evidence to substantiate his case. Without giving any opportunity to let in evidence to prove that he is a tenant in respect of the premises in question, the trial Court rejected the claim petitions at the threshold. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and the Execution Applications filed by the claim petitioner are restored to their original file and the same shall have to be disposed of within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving opportunity to both parties in accordance with law. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondent-D.Hr. to proceed with further in accordance with law.