Smt.M.Aruna

IN THE COURT OF XV ADDL.JUDGE-CUM-XIX ADDL.CHIEF

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT SECUNDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE 24 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

Present : Smt.M.Aruna, XV Addl.Judge-cum-XIX ACMM Secunderabad.

C.C.NO.1714 OF 2019

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda P.S. Secunderabad.

… Complainant

And

A1 : Mohd Salman S/o.Md Zakir, Age: 23 yrs, Occ: Binding works, R/o.H.No.12-10-687/50/12, Indira Nagar, Street No.1, Near Turning Point Hotel, Warasiguda, Secunderabad. A2 : Mohd Zakir S/o.Late Shaik Ameer, Age: 57 yrs, Occ: Car Driver, R/o.H.No. 12-10-687/50/12, Indira Nagar, Street No.1, Near Turning Point Hotel, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

… Accused

This case has been come before me for final hearing on 09.04.2026, in the presence of Learned APP for Prosecution and Sri.A.C.Srinivas, Advocate representing forthe accused No.1 & 2, and after having stood over for determination till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The state represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Chilkalguda P.S Secunderabad has filed a Charge-Sheet against the accused No.1 & 2 in Crime No47/2019 for the offences punishable

XIX ACMM

DT: 24.04.2026

2 C.C. 1714 of 2019 under sections 332, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act.

2.The brief facts of the Charge-Sheet is that :-

i) On 24.07.2017 at 01.30 hours LW9 received a complaint from LW1/Amanganti Raju Police Constable, in which he stated that on 15.01.2019 while he was performing BC III Section duties from 08.00 pm to 08.00 am along with P Naga Raju who is also police constable and on 16.01.2019 he received a massage from PS through VHF set from the section in charge head constable/BN

Reddy and he informed that, he received an information to the whatsapp contact number that at Road No.1, Indira Nagar,

Warasiguda, there was a sound pollution then they immediately, rushed to the spot and found some peoples are dancing with big sound by using sound box on building and while the LW1 tried to stop them, but the accused, his father and others obstructed their duties in drunken condition and abused them in filthy language and behaved rudely with them and also thrown VHF set from upstairs to ground floor and further the accused No.1 had beaten the LW1 on his face by his hands due to which he received bleeding injuries on lip, therefore, he lodged complaint so, basing on the

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 3 C.C. 1714 of 2019 complaint LW9/Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.47/2019 U/Secs.353, 332, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 of

PDPP Act against the accused and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against them.

3.This case was taken on file, against the accused No.1 & 2 for the offences U/Secs.332, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP

Act by the Hon’ble X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Secunderabad on 06.06.2019 and assigned as a CC.No.1714 of 2019.

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 & 2, copies of the documents as required U/Sec.207 Cr.PC have been supplied to them and they were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and heard the charges for the offences punishable U/Secs.332, 504, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act has been framed, read over and explained to them in telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter is posted for trial.

5.During the pendency of the trial, this case has been transferred to this court as per the orders of Honorable Metropolitan

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 4 C.C. 1714 of 2019

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide in Dis No.6346 dated 19.12.2023

and the said case is received by this court on 31.01.2024.

6.In order to prove this case against the accused No.1 & 2 the prosecution got examined as Pws.1 to 6, and got marked Exs.P1 to

P3.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 & 2 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. and enabled to explain them about the incriminating evidence found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses as false and no evidence adduced on behalf of defence.

8.Heard counsel for the accused, the learned APP not advanced arguments hence, the arguments of APP is closed.

9. Now the point for determination is :

“whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused No.1 & 2 for the offences U/Secs.332, 504, 506 r/w

34 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act with which they were

charge-sheeted. If so, whether the accused are liable for

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 5 C.C. 1714 of 2019 punishment of the same”?

10. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution cited its Eleven witnesses out of them Pws.1 to 6 are examined and got marked as Exs.P1 to P3. Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the FIR, and Ex.P3 is the Scene observation panchanama.

11.POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that , on 16.01.2019 when the

Lws.1 & 2 were on patrolling duty in the limits of Chilkalguda they received an information from the head constable that, some persons are in the limits of Chilkalguda were kept the sound boxes with a high sound and causing disturbance to the locality people therefore, they were directed to go and stop the nuisance, then immediately, the LW1 and LW2 went there by the time, the accused persons along with others were in drunken condition on the building of then, they tried to stop the sound but the accused No.1 beat the

LW1 on his face and lips and while the LW2 taking the videography the A2 forcefully taken VHF set and thrown it from the staircase due to which the VHF set was damaged and then the both accused per- sons abused in filthy language therefore, the accused persons have

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 6 C.C. 1714 of 2019 committed the offence.

12.The learned counsel for the accused have argued that, there is no such incident occurred as the PW1 not seized any such VHF set to show that, it was damaged and the accused persons never made nuisance by keeping the high sound with sound box but the case is created against the accused only for statistical purpose, so that the

Witnesses cited are only related to the police persons and there are no independent witnesses or neighboring persons to whom the al- leged disturbance is caused are not examined so, that the case is falsely filed hence, the accused persons are entitled for acquittal.

13.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution cited its witnesses as LWs. 1 to 11 among them got examined the PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exs. P1 & P2, the LW1 is examined as a PW1 who is the Constable at Chilkalguda Police Station and he lodged complained that, he was on duty on the date of the alleged incident and he received injury due to beating by the accused No.1, the LW2 is examined as a PW2, he said to be accompanied with LW1 as he was also on patrolling duty on the date of alleged instead and while he was taking the videography, the accused No.2 forcefully taken

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 7 C.C. 1714 of 2019 the VHF set and thrown it away from the staircase, the LW3 is examined as a PW3 who is constable and cited as a circumstantial witness, the LW4 is also examined as a PW4 who is also police constable and circumstantial witness, LW5 is examined as PW5 who is also constable and circumstantial witness and LW10 is examined as PW6, he is the first investigating officer and SHO of Chilkalguda and filed charge sheet, but the prosecution failed to examine LWs 6 & 7 who are panch witnesses for the scene observation panchnama and rough sketch, LW8 who is a duty doctor at Gandhi hospital, is also not examined, LW9 is the first investigating officer to take the complaint and issued FIR, LW11 is the second investigating officer, is also not examined therefore, the prosecution examined the PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

14.As per the evidence of PW1, he worked as a police constable at Chilkalguda Police Station at the time of this incident and on 15.09.2016 himself along with the LW2 were allotted patrolling duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am in between 12 to 12.30 am he received an information through his VHF set that, there is a sound pollution at

Indira Nagar area street No.1 then, they proceeded there and found

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 8 C.C. 1714 of 2019 that the accused persons kept the speaker on staircase by keeping the high sound and taking alcohol along with their friends then, they asked to stop the sound, but they did not stop it and accused No.1 beat him on his face and while he was giving information to the other police officials through the VHF set, the accused No.1 was forcefully taken it and thrown away from the terrace, then he brought the accused No.1 to the police station and lodged a complaint, later he was referred to the Gandhi Hospital for treatment and there he undergone treatment, the police examined him and recorded his statement Ex.P1 is marked it is a complaint.

15.But the counsel for the accused have argued that, the PW1 was never on duty, as there is no such record filed by him that, he was on duty on the alleged date of incident and no such VHF set was damaged as there is no such panchnama was conducted by seizing the alleged damaged VHF set and from whom the information is received by the LW1 & 2, is not cited as a witness therefore, the false story is created by the police in collusion with each other and without examining any independent witnesses, they filed the false case only to harass the accused.

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 9 C.C. 1714 of 2019

16.In cross-examination of PW1, he admitted that he has not submitted any proof to show that, he was on duty on the date of alleged incident and the particulars of the house where they went is not mentioned, the ownership particulars of the house is also not mentioned and the names of the eyewitnesses is also not mentioned in complaint therefore, the counsel for the accused have argued that, when there are several persons who are alleged to be taking alcohol on building by keeping the high range of sound, then generally it will be causing disturbance to the neighbours but without examining any neighbour, the police persons only cited as a witnesses to support of each other to get convicted the accused. In this case admittedly, the Pws. 1 to 6 are the police persons only no other independent witnesses are cited by the investigating officer is cited as a witness and LWs 6 and 7 are said to be panch witnesses for the scene observation panchanama and rough sketch but, they were not examined by the prosecution therefore, the prosecution is failed to prove the scene observation panchanama, the further argument of the counsel for the accused is that, there is no such sound boxes seized by the police that the accused persons kept the sound boxes with high sound by using those sound boxes

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 10 C.C. 1714 of 2019 and admittedly, in this case there are no such sound boxes seized by the police to show that, the accused persons used the sound box by keeping the sound pollution.

17.The PW2 is the another police constable who said to accompanied to the PW1 and he deposed that, on 15.01.2019 himself along with PW1, Lws 3 to 5 were went to attend the patrolling duty from 8.00 pm to 08.00 am and while they were in duty in the locality of Warasiguda they received an information from

B.N. Reddy/head constable at police station Chilkalguda to their handset, he informed that there is a sound pollution at street No.1 at Warasiguda then, immediately himself along with the PW1 went to the top of the building there, they found accused No.1 & A2 and also some other persons and they were taking alcohol and they are in drunken condition then while they were taking the videography they forcefully taken handset from them and thrown it and also beat the PW1 by the accused No.1 due to which the PW1 received injury and further they abused them in filthy language then they called the

Pws. 3 to 5 then, they came to the scene, later they informed the incident to them and till the arrival of LW9 they were waiting and

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 11 C.C. 1714 of 2019 later PW1 went to police station and lodged complaint to the police, police examined him and recorded his statement.

18. So, as per the evidence of PW2, he accompanied with the

PW1, the PW1 himself received the information about the sound pollution in the Warasigud locality and this information is given by

B.N. Reddy/head constable, to their handset then, immediately they went there and found accused No.1 & 2 along with others on the building and they were taking the alcohol and they are in drunken condition so that while they were taking the videography, they accused persons took it forcefully and also took the VHF set, thrown it, then beat the PW1 due to which he received injury and the same is informed to the Lws.3 to 5, then the LW9 also arrived so, later they went to police station, the Lw1 lodged complaint but the counsel for the accused have argued that it is nowhere mentioned by the PW1 that they informed to the Lws.3 to 5 and also they were waiting till the Lw9 arrives but BN Reddy who is the head constable said to be given information to VHF set and the Lws 1 & 2 are not cited as witnesses and the prosecution also not to summoned him to support that version therefore, false story is created only for the

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 12 C.C. 1714 of 2019 purpose of this case so, that reason only, all the witnesses are cited are belongs to the same police station where the case is registered therefore, in collision with each other to harass the accused filed the false case.

19.In cross examination of the PW2, he deposed that he did not handed over any proof to show that, he was on patrolling duty along with PW1 on the alleged date of alleged incident and he do not know the house number of the scene of offence as the incident is occurred at night hours and not seized any property at the scene of offence therefore, the counsel for the accused given a suggestion that no such incident occurred and the accused have persons never beat the PW1 and also not damaged the VHF set, only the story is created for the purpose of this case to harass the accused therefore, he submitted that the accused are innocent persons so that they are to be acquitted.

20.PW3 is another police constable and he is the Circumstantial

Witness and as per the prosecution story, the Lws.3 to 5 are also on patrolling duty but in different locality of of Chilkalguda limits and after the incident the Lws 1 & 2 informed to them and then they

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 13 C.C. 1714 of 2019 arrived there so that, basing on the information of Pws 1 & 2 they gave statement therefore, they are cited as a circumstantial witnesses.

21. As per the evidence of PW3 on 15.01.2019 at evening hours, in himself along with Pws.1, 2, 4 & 5 were on Patrolling duty in the limits of the Warasiguda by the time, he received information from

PW1, that there was a sound pollution at street No.1, Warasiguda then immediately, he rushed there and waited till the LW9 arrives thereafter, they brought the accused to the police station and he was examined and his statement was by the police.

22.But the counsel for the accused have argued that, the PW3 is not a eyewitness so, his evidence cannot be considered as he never witnessed any alleged incident and whatever stated by the Pws 1 & 2 is deposing the same by PW3 therefore, the evidence of PW3 is not at all useful to the prosecution unless it corroborates with the evidence of Lws 1 & 2.

23.PW4 is also another circumstantial witness and also police constable worked at the Chilkalguda police station during the

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 14 C.C. 1714 of 2019 alleged incident and he deposed that on 15.01.2019 himself along with Pws.1, 2, 3, LW5 were on patrolling duty and between 12.00 to 12:30 hours they received a phone call from the PW1 that there was a DJ sound on building at Warasiguda locality then they went to stop it but the persons on the building beat the PW1 on his lips and abused him in filthy language then, they immediately went there, found that the PW1 was having injury on his lips and when he asked about the injury, he said that there are 4 to 5 persons in a drunken condition and they beat the Pw1 so, they brought the accused persons to police station and recorded his statement.

24.So, as per the evidence of PW4, there are accused persons and also others were present on the building and they all are con- suming alcohol by keeping the huge sound in the sound boxes and when the Pws.1 & 2 reached there between 12.00 to 12:30 hours in intervening night between 15.01.2019 to 16.01.2019, the accused persons and others were taking alcohol on the top of the building, so, as per this version the incident is occurred in midnight hours and at the scene of offense is top of the building it is in between the 12.00 to 12:30 hours, so to enter into that building whether they

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 15 C.C. 1714 of 2019 have taken any search proceedings from the concerned authority or whether they straight away entered into the house of the accused persons, why because the scene of offence is the house which is at top of the building so, when it is a house then how they entered into the house and what are the portions and how many doors consisting the building and what time they reached to the scene of offence then, who opened the door to go to the top of the building, these facts are silent and moreover, on that building not only the accused

No.1 and A2 are present, there are other persons were also present as all witnesses are deposed that, apart from the accused No.1 & 2, there are 4-5 persons are also present and they were taking the alcohol and the Pws.1 to 5 and also LW9 went to the scene of offence but none of the witnesses said that the other four or five persons were also taken into custody as they are also created nuisance by keeping the sound boxes in high sound and if they are not related to the offense they would have to be cited as a witnesses but they are not cited as either witness or keep them as a accused persons and if at all, the alleged nuisance was created by the accused persons on the top of the building by keeping the sound it will be nuisance to the neighboring persons or the locality people

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 16 C.C. 1714 of 2019 but none of the locality persons or the neighboring persons near to the scene of offence are examined and the Pws 3 to 5 are said to be circumstantial witnesses and the Pws 1 to 5 along with LW9 are said to be at the scene of offence if the accused No.1 & 2 and the other 4 or 5 persons are there then why the police could not bring all the persons to the police station if they were creating nuisance and why the accused No.1 only brought to the police station what is the participation of accused No.2 and whether he was apprehended at the scene of offence or after registration of the case or any further date.

25.PW4 also stated that he received an information from the Pws 1 & 2 about the alleged incident and whatever stated by the Pws 1 & 2, he deposed the same, PW5 is another circumstantial witness he is also worked as a constable at the time of alleged incident and he deposed that on 15.01.2019 himself along with LW5 were on patrolling duty at 12.00 hours they received information from the

PW1 that there was a quarrel at Medibabi, Indira Nagar and some persons thrown his VHF set and also beat him then immediately they went to that house which is consisting ground + first floor at

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 17 C.C. 1714 of 2019

Medibavi, Street No.1 then they asked the PW1 on that he said that accused No.1 & 2 along with 5 to 6 members beat him on his lips then they found that blood was oozing and the accused persons and other persons were on drunken condition so unable to control them, then informed the same to the LW10 and they took the accused persons in their patro car and handed over to SHO then he was examined and recorded his statement.

26.But the counsel for the accused have argued that the PW5 also not filed any proof to show that he was on duty on that day and he is also said to be circumstantial witness and said that basing on the information given by the Pws 1 & 2 he went there and he did not witness any incident but he said that the building was consist- ing ground + first floor and the incident was occurred in the top of the building and he is also said that there are 4 or 6 person apart from the accused persons were present there, so when the Lws 1 to 5 and also LW10 were present why they could not stop them and even if it is considered that the Lws 1 & 2 only went there and the accused persons are more persons in drunken conditions so therefore, could not control them but they informed the Lws 3 to 5

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 18 C.C. 1714 of 2019 they also came there and also given information to Lws 9 or 10 and he came there so, therefore, there are six persons who are present there, but though they could apprehended them and not brought to the police station and why the PW2 said that they were waiting till

LW9 arrivals to the scene of offence and the PW5 was waiting till the arrivals of LW10 to the scene of offence so either they informed to the LW9 or LW10 and whether the LW9 came to the scene of offence or LW10 came to the scene of offence is also no clarity.

27.PW6 is the first investigating officer he investigated the case and filed charge-sheet and he deposed that at the time of alleged incident he worked as SHO at Chilkalguda police station and he received complaint from the PW1 then registered a case and issued

FIR, recorded the statement of Lws 1 to 5 and LW2 stated that accused No.2 tried to take his mobile phone and the same is videographed then visited the scene of offence by collecting Lws 6 & 7, conducted scene observation panchanama and in their presence later he apprehended the accused No.2 then he handed over the CD file to LW11 he arrested the accused and sent them to the judicial remand after completion of investigation he filed charge-sheet.

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 19 C.C. 1714 of 2019

28.So, as per the evidence of PW6, he received complaint and after entire investigation he handed over the CD file to LW11 then he filed charge sheet but in cross-examination of PW6 by the counsel for the accused he admitted that he has not filed any record to show that the Lws 1 to 5 were on official duty at the time of offence and the LW11 not stated that they received information through their VHF set on the alleged date of incident and Ex.P1 complaint is also not submitted to show that the head constable of

Chilkalguda police station by name BN Reddy received information through his whatsapp and he did not seized any sound boxes and also VHF set from the scene of offence and also not recovered any damaged VHF set therefore, the counsel for the accused have argued that the case is created only for statistical purpose therefore, they did not filed the material which is alleged to be damaged by the accused persons.

29.However, in this case the prosecution would have to prove that the Pws 1 to 5 were on official duty ie., on patrolling duty on the alleged date of incident in the limits of Chilkalguda does not prove and further version of the prosecution is that basing on the

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 20 C.C. 1714 of 2019 information received from the BN Reddy who worked as Head constable at police station, the Pws 1 & 2 went to the scene of offence that there are sound pollution and to prove the same the BN

Reddy/head constable is not examined that he gave information with regard to the sound pollution in the locality of Warasiguda and further the Pws 1 & 2 went there and when they went to staircase by the time the accused person along with 4 or 5 other persons where taking alcohol and they were in drunken condition they kept sound boxes in the huge sound to support the same the sound boxes not seized by the investigating officer and further the prosecution submitted that when the Pws 1 & 2 were tired to stop the sound boxes and while checking the accused No.1 beat the PW1 on his lips, so due to which he received injury and he undergone treatment at Gandhi hospital and the duty doctor at Gandhi hospital issued medical certificate and he was examined as LW8 but to support the same the LW8 is not examined and on perusal of the medical certificate which is alleged to be issued by the LW8 the columns are kept blank and there are no particulars with regard to the injured person and what is the nature of the injury and what was the object used to cause that injury is nowhere mentioned

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 21 C.C. 1714 of 2019 except, the name of the PW1 there are no particulars that the PW1 received an injury it is either on his face or on his lips so, the medical certificate is not proved by the prosecution and further version of the prosecution is that the accused person forcefully taken VHF set from the possession of the PW1 and thrown it from the staircase due to which it was damaged and to support the same there is no such recovery made by the investigating officer to show that the VHF set of PW1 was damaged and it is the government property and intentionally damaged by the accused persons, so that they are liable for punishment but in the entire case there is no such evidence produced by the prosecution and LW s 6 & 7 are only independent witnesses for the scene observation panchanama and rough sketch but they were not examined by the prosecution, LW9 is said to be issued FIR is also not examined, LW11 is the investigating officer is given up by the learned APP and among the

Lws 1 to 11, the Lws 6 & 7 are the independent witnesses and LW8 is the doctor at Gandhi hospital said to be treated to the PW1 but they all are not examined and Pws 1 to 6 are the police persons they are examined and among them the Pws 1 & 2 are the eyewitness, Pws 3 to 5 are the circumstantial witnesses and they

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 22 C.C. 1714 of 2019 are said to be on duty on the date of alleged incident but to support the same there is no such general diary entry at police station or any other proof filed by the investigating officer therefore, as per the discussion above the prosecution is failed to prove the case against the accused for the alleged charges, so the prosecution is utterly failed to prove the case as such the accused person's are entitled for acquittal so, they are set at liberty.

In the result, the accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.332, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and

Sec.3 of PDPP Act so, they are acquitted for the said offences

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accusedshall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2026.

XV Addl. Judge–Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1 : A.Raju, dt:17.10.2024. - None-

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026 23 C.C. 1714 of 2019

PW2 : P.Nagaraju, dt:10.03.2025. PW3 : B.Saikrishna, dt:13.03.2025. PW4 : K.Ravi Kumar, dt:22.09.2025. PW5 : G.Sudhakar, dt:22.09.2025. PW6 : A.Varun Kanth Reddy, dt: 06.02.2026.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P1 : The complaint. Ex.P2 : The FIR. Ex.P3 : The Scene observation panchanama. FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

FOR MATERIAL OBJECTS:

NIL

XV Addl. Judge–Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

XIX ACMM

24.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF XV ADDL.JUDGE-CUM-XIX ADDL.CHIEF

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT SECUNDERABAD

MONDAY, THE 13 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

Present : Smt.M.Aruna, XV Addl.Judge-cum-XIX ACMM Secunderabad.

C.C.NO. 513 OF 2016

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda P.S. Secunderabad.

… Complainant

And

Thirupathi, S/o.Nagaraju, Age: 23 years, Occ: Auto Driver,R/o.H.No.12-10-590/108/4,Medibavi, Secunderabad.

… Accused

This case has been come before me for final hearing on 25.03.2026, in the presence of Learned APP for Prosecution and Sri.Bala Mallesh., Advocate representing forthe accused, and after having stood over for determination till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The state represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Chilkalguda P.S Secunderabad has filed a Charge-Sheet against the accused in Crime No.148/2016 for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the Charge-Sheet is that :-

XIX ACMM

DT: 13.04.2026

2 C.C.513 of 2016

i) On 13.03.2016 at 1210 hours LW7 received a complaint from LW1/S.Srikanth, in which he stated that he soaked red chilies and kept broom soft aside on the terrace then a neighbor by name

Thirupathi/accused slept along with his friends on the terrace and the accused passed urine on the broom and chili in drunken condition then on that the complainant asked about the matter, the accused started quarreling with him and beaten him on his head with a brick, due to which he received head injuries, so the complainant given report to the Police Station, Chilkalguda, basing on the complaint LW7 registered a case in Cr.No.148/2016

U/Sec.324 IPC and after completion of investigation filed charge- sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence U/Sec.324 of IPC by the Hon’ble X Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad on 03.06.2016 and assigned as a CC.No.513 of 2016.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of the documents as required U/Sec.207 Cr.PC have been supplied to him and he was

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 3 C.C.513 of 2016 examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and heard the charges for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to them in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter is posted for trial.

5.During the pendency of the trial, this case has been transferred to this court as per the orders of Honorable Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide in Dis No.1655 dated 20.04.2022

and the said case is received by this court on 25.06.2022.

6.In order to prove this case against the accused the prosecution got examined as Pws.1 to 6, and got marked Exs.P1 to

P4.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. and enabled to explain him about the incriminating evidence found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses as false and no evidence adduced on behalf of defence.

8.Heard both sides.

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 4 C.C.513 of 2016

9. Now the point for determination is :

“whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence U/Sec.324 Of IPC with which he

was charge-sheeted. If so, whether the accused is liable for

punishment of the same”?

10. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution cited its Seven witnesses out of them PWs1 to 6 are examined and got marked as Exs.P1 to P4. Ex.P1 is the complaint, Ex.P2 is the scene observation panchanama and rough sketch, Ex.P3 is the FIR,

Ex.P4 is the Medical certificate.

11.POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that the accused and the PW1 are the neighbors and they are residing in the same house at different portions on rental basis and on 13.03.2016 the accused was sleeping along with his friends on terrace, and the PW1 kept the chilly for soaking and also kept one broom beside the chili but meanwhile the accused passed urine on chili's and when the PW1 went to the terrace on seeing it he asked him why he passed urine on chili then the accused had became angry and beat the PW1 with

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 5 C.C.513 of 2016 a brick on his head due to which he received injuries, then he went to the hospital, the Doctor made stitches therefore, the PW1 lodged complaint against the accused that he committed the offence against the PW1 intentionally though he have knowledge about injury.

12.The counsel for the accused have argued that, to prove the case of the prosecution U/Sec.324 of IPC the prosecution should establish the medical certificate, but the alleged doctor who alleged to be examined and issued medical certificate is not examined and even not cited him as a witness and no property is seized which is alleged to be used to commit the offence ie., brick is also not seized and the chili on which the accused passed urine is also not seized or taken any photograph therefore, due to previous grudges in between them the PW1 lodged false complaint and basing on the false complaint the police registered a case and the witnesses are relative to PW1 so they are planted by the PW1 for the purpose of this case therefore, the prosecution is failed to prove the case against the accused so, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 6 C.C.513 of 2016

13.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution cited its witnesses as Lws 1 to 7 among them prosecution got examined LW1 as a PW1 who is the complainant/victim, LW2 is examined as PW2,

LW3 is examined as a PW4, LW4 is examined as a PW2 they are said to be circumstantial witnesses and neighbor to the house of the accused , LW5 is examined as PW5 he is the panch witness for the scene observation panchanama and rough sketch and LW7 is examined as a PW6 he is the investigating officer filed charge- sheet. The learned APP givenup the evidence of LW6 who is another panch witness for the scene observation panchanama and rough sketch.

14.The evidence of PW1 is that, LW2 is his mother LWs3 & 4 are his neighbors and he know the accused as they both are the tenants in the same house and on 13.03.2016 at about 09.00 to 09.10 am he went to staircase of the building as he soaked the read chili and kept one broom stick beside that chili and on that day the accused and his friends were sleeping and the accused passed urine on chili and also broom stick then he went there and asked the accused why he passed urine on chili and broom stick on that the accused

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 7 C.C.513 of 2016 immediately picked up quarrel by taking the brick from there and beat the PW1, due to which he received injury on his face then his brother by name Ramesh informed about the incident to police and he went to Gandhi hospital and where the doctor made seven stitches on his head and five stitches on back side of his head and on the same day he went to police station and gave a report, police examined him and recorded his statement and on that day, the Lws 3 & 4 were also witnessed the incident as they are his neighbors.

15.But the counsel for the accused have argued that, the Lws 3 & 4 are planted witnesses as they are not neighbors but they are the supporters of the PW1, LW2 is the mother of the PW1 therefore, in collusion with each other created, the offence and falsely implicated the accused therefore, the case is registered falsely to harass the accused in collusion with the police.

16.In cross-examination of PW1 by the counsel for the accused he has taken a plea that if the friend of the accused are sleeping along with the accused they would have to interfere to stop the alleged galata or provoke the accused but the PW1 nowhere mentioned their names and the police also not cited them as either

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 8 C.C.513 of 2016 witnesses or made them as accused therefore, it is clear that the case is falsely created against the accused due to previous grudges as they both are neighboring tenants in the same house. In cross- examination of the PW1 he admitted that they both are the neighbors and the friends of the accused also sleeping on the building and they were in drunken condition but he do not know how many members are there and he do not know their names but he further said that there are several liquor bottles so, he confirmed that the accused would have taken alcohol but the investigating officer not stated that there are some liquor bottles they were seized by the police at the scene of offence and in further cross- examination of the PW1 he deposed that while the accused was passing urine on soaked chili he saw the same but it is nowhere mentioned either by the PW1 in Ex.P1 or in his chief examination as the same is not mentioned in the complaint/Ex.P1 that he witnessed while passing urine by the accused on soaked chili, the counsel for the accused have further argued that the alleged brick or any other material used for offence is not seized by the investigating officer but whereas the PW1 deposed in his cross- examination that the police seized one brick, to consider the same

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 9 C.C.513 of 2016 the brick is not produced by the investigating officer who is examined as a PW6 and he further deposed that no material is seized at the scene of offence and the PW1 also not handed over any material which is used to commit the offence by the accused therefore, the counsel for the accused has given a suggestion that due to previous grudges only he filed false complaint and even there is there is no medical evidence filed by the prosecution that the PW1 received injury as said by him and the alleged medical certificate issued by the alleged doctor his name is also not mentioned so he is not examined therefore, the medical certificate is created for the purpose of this case so, that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

17.However, in this case, the prosecution filed the medical certificate which is marked as Ex.P4 it is named as accident register and that the PW1 was undergone treatment as a out patient at the duty doctor in Gandhi hospital but the name of that duty doctor is not mentioned and he is not cited as a witness by the investigating officer even to consider that, the Ex.P4 issued by the medical officer of Gandhi hospital, the prosecution would have to summon that

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 10 C.C.513 of 2016 medical officer though his name is not mentioned in list of witnesses but no step have been taken by the prosecution there- fore, the prosecution is failed to prove the medical certificate/ Ex.P4 though it is marked through PW6 even it is marked but it should be proved by the proper person who said to be issued it by examining that person but mere marking does not mean that it is proved by examining the investigating officer so, unless and until the person who issued it after examining the injured he only have knowledge so it cannot be consider that the Ex.P4 is issued by the medical officer after examining the injured person who is PW1 and even to consider the Ex.P1 there are no particulars of the injured person/

PW1 and also nature of the wound, nature of weapon, seized of the wound etc., and there is no clarity that whether the PW1 himself went to the hospital or he was referred by the police after lodging the complaint it is also not mentioned by the prosecution but the

PW1 said that after receiving of the injury he went to Gandhi hospital and undergone treatment where the duty doctor made seven stitches on his head and five stitches on backside of his head to consider the same the Ex.P4 is silent therefore, to prove the offence U/Sec.324 of IPC the medical certificate is very crucial apart

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 11 C.C.513 of 2016 from the weapon which is alleged to be used by the accused person to commit that offence but in this case the PW1 said that the brick which was used by the accused to beat him is seized by the PW6 whereas, in evidence of PW6 he deposed that no such brick is seized from the scene of offence and there is no material is seized which is alleged to be used by the accused to commit that offence either from the possession of the accused or from the scene of offence therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not credible.

18.PW2 is said to be neighbor to the house of the accused and also PW1 and he depose that he know the PW1 but he do not know the Lws 2 & 3 and he know the accused and on 13.03.2016 at about 09.10 am when he was at home he heard some noises from outside of his house then he came from his house and found one brick and also one broom stick and the PW1 was having injury on his head and oozing the blood then he asked him why blood is oozing on his head then he replied that he soaked some chili on the building and on which the accused passed urine when he asked about that as to why the accused passed urine then the accused beat him with brick due to which he received injury therefore, he brought the PW1 from

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 12 C.C.513 of 2016 terrace to the ground and PW1 lodged complaint so, as per the evidence of PW2 he is the neighbor to the scene of offence but he do not know Lws 2 & 3 and as per the version of the PW1 the LW2 is his mother and they both are residing there and LW3 is also his neighbor but they do not know the PW2 and as per the evidence of

PW2 in his chief examination he is not the eyewitness to the incident he is also circumstantial witness to the alleged incident but the counsel for the accused have argued that he is not at all residing there and he is friend to the PW1 therefore, the counsel for the accused have submitted that the PW2 is to support the PW1 cited as a witness to support the PW1 as there is no such incident occurred the PW1 might have fell down himself due to which he might have received injury therefore, the PW2 never resided near to the scene of offence as he was residing somewhere who is the friend of PW1 and in cross-examination of PW2 he deposed that he is resident of Warasiguda near to Jhonson Grammer school but he further deposed that he was residing near to the house of the accused by the time of incident, the PW1 said that LW2 is his mother LW3 is also his neighbour to the house but even if it is considers that the Lws 3 & 4 are also neighbor then why the PW2

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 13 C.C.513 of 2016 denied that he do not know the mother of the PW1 though he is also neighbor to him and why he do not know the other neighbor who is LW3 therefore, the evidence of PW2 is also doubtful with regard to the residence as the PW1 said that the Lws 3 & 4 saw the incident directly but as per chief examination of the PW2 he saw the incident after hearing some noises then he came outside from his house and observed that the PW1 was having injury but PW2 nowhere stated that the accused is his friend and also he was present there at the time of incident that the accused person beat the PW1 therefore, credibility of evidence of PW2 is also doubtful.

19.PW3 is the mother of the PW1 and she deposed that she know the LW3 and accused and on 13.03.2016 at 09.00 am her son/PW1 went to terrace as they kept some dry chili for soaking but the accused passed urine on those chili and also one broom stick which was kept beside chili for that the PW1 asked then the accused beat him with brick on his head the same is informed by the PW1 to the police, police examined and recorded her statement. So, as per the evidence of PW3, the LW3 is her neighbor, PW1 is her son and the alleged incident known to her through PW1 so she was not present

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 14 C.C.513 of 2016 but the same is informed by PW1, the counsel for the accused have argued that the PW3 is planted for the purpose of this case to support the version of PW1 as she was never present there as there is no such the incident occurred but the PW3 deposed on the date of alleged incident she was in ground floor if it is consider them why she was not able to hear the alleged sound why because the PW2 said that he is neighbor not residing in the same house though he heard noises when he was inside of the house then he came outside and found that the PW1 was having injury oozing blood from his head but the PW3 is being the mother of PW1 who is residing in the same house is not observed the same and so it is not believable therefore, with regard to the credibility of evidence the PW3 is doubtful as the PW3 stated that whatever said by the PW1 she is deposed the same.

20.PW4 is the another neighbor to the house of the PW1 and she deposed that she know the Pws 1 to 3 and also the accused on 13.03.2016 at 09.00 am when the PW1 was coming from the stair- case with injuries then he asked him and on that he replied that the accused beat him with brick on his head when he asked him as to

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 15 C.C.513 of 2016 why he passed urine on soaked chilis and also broom stick which he kept beside chili so, as per the evidence of PW4 she is also hear say witness as she is also received information from the PW1 and basing on statement given by the PW1 she deposed the same and the counsel for the accused have argued that she is resident of somewhere but not resided at the scene of offence and she is the relative of the PW1 so that reason only she was planted as witness and there is no such incident occurred and the accused is noway related to this case and in cross-examination of PW4 she is also deposed that she was resident of Warasiguda by the time of incident and later she was shifted to some where, to support the same there is no evidence filed by the prosecution that the Lws 3 & 4 are the neighbors by the time of incident therefore, the evidence of PW4 is also doubtful.

21.PW5 is said to be witness for panchanama to the scene of offence and rough sketch and he deposed that he know the LW6 who is another panch witnesses and on 13.03.2016the police

Chilkalguda called him to police station and they all are proceeded to the scene of offence and observed the scene and conducted

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 16 C.C.513 of 2016 scene observation panchanama and drawn rough sketch and later he put his signature on it therefore, Ex.P2 is marked as scene observation panchanama and rough sketch.

22.But the counsel for the accused have argued that he is relative to the PW1 and the police never conducted any scene observation panchanama and also not prepared CDF therefore, the

Ex.P2 is planted for the purpose of this case however, in this case in cross-examination of PW5 he admitted that he is the relative to the neighbor of PW1 and the police not seized any material in his presence but he put his signature on it on instance of police, there- fore the counsel for the accused have given a suggestion that he is the stock witness and he is interested witness so that planted for the purpose to support the Ex.P2 however, as per the cross- examination of PW5 he admitted that he is the relative to the neighbor to the PW1but he is no where mentioned that he is residing in that locality and no other particulars belongs to her are mentioned therefore, the evidence of PW5 is also no believable to prove Ex.P2.

23.LW7 is examined as PW6 who is the investigating officer and

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 17 C.C.513 of 2016 he deposed that on 13.03.2016 he received a petition from LW1 then he registered a case and issued FIR, it is marked as Ex.P3 during the investigation he examined and recorded the statement of

LW1, visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of Lws 5 & 6 in their presence he prepared scene observation panchanama and rough sketch later he examined and recorded the statement of

Lws 2 to 4 and while investigation is in progress the accused himself came to police station surrendered before him then he interrogated him on interrogation he revealed his particulars then issued notice

U/Sec.41(A) Cr.PC later he collected the medical certificate from the

CMO of Gandhi Hospital and the medical certificate is marked as

Ex.P4 and after completion of investigation he filed charge-sheet.

24.But the counsel for the accused have argued that though the medical certificate is marked through investigating officer/PW6 as

Ex.P4 it cannot be considered unless the doctor who examined and issued it is examined as the prosecution is failed to examine the medical officer andthe friends of the accused who alleged to be present on terrace are also not examined and also police not seized any such brick or any other material which is alleged to be used by

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 18 C.C.513 of 2016 the accused to beat the PW1 therefore so it is clear that, the case is registered falsely basing on false complaint only to harass the accused and in cross-examination of PW6 he clearly admitted that the friends of the accused who were alleged to be sleeping with accused are not examined and the brick which is used by the accused to commit the offence is also not seized and the brother of the PW1 by name Ramesh is also not examined, and not cited as witness the owner to the house where the accused and PW1 are residing is not examined and the investigating officer not mentioned anything about the ownership of the house that whether there are any other tenant or owners are residing if so, why they did not examine them but to prove the offence Sec.324 of IPC the prosecution should establish the ingredients that the accused had an intention to commit the offence and for that he used the material ie., brick to cause injury to the PW1 due to which he received injury on his body either face or lips and then he was referred to the

Gandhi hospital and where the medical officer treated him then issued medical certificate/Ex.P4 that the injury caused to the PW1 because of specific object ie., brick or any similar material and should mention the nature of the injury either simple or grievous

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 19 C.C.513 of 2016 but in this case there is no such medical evidence filed by the pros- ecution therefore, as per the discussion above the prosecution is failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence

U/Sec.324 of IPC so, that the accused is entitled for acquittal and the accused is set at liberty.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 IPC so, he is acquitted for the said offences

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of April, 2026.

XV Addl. Judge–Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1 : Srikanth, dt:11.02.2025. - None- PW2 : G.Suresh, dt: 10.04.2025. PW3 : Yadalakshmi, dt:07.08.2025. PW4 : P.Vanitha, dt:07.08.2025. PW5 : G.Satish, dt: 01.09.2025. PW6 : P.Jaya Shankar, dt:28.10.2025.

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026 20 C.C.513 of 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P1 : The complaint. Ex.P2 : The scene observation panchanama and rough sketch. Ex.P3 : The FIR. Ex.P4 : The Medical certificate.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

FOR MATERIAL OBJECTS:

NIL

XV Addl. Judge–Cum-XIX ACMM., Secunderabad.

XIX ACMM

13.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

DATED: MONDAY, THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

PRESENT: SMT. M. ARUNA, B.A.,LL.M.,

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S.NO. 2253 OF 2013

BETWEEN: Anjuman-e-Ittehade Iraniane Deccan, A Society registered Under A.P. Societies Registration Act 2001, rep. by its Honorary Secretary Mohammed Ali Namakubby. . . Plaintiff AND Ahmed Reza . . . Defendant

This suit is coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri M. Papa Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri T. Suryakiran, Advocate for the Defendant and having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property and also for mesne profits of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of suit till the vacant possession to the plaintiff.

2.The brief averments of the plaint is that the plaintiff is a

Charitable Institution registered in the nature of society Under

Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 vide

Registration No.893 of 2006 and it is also Income Tax Assessees having independent PAN number. The minutes of the Board resulution authorizing Mohd. Ali, Namakubbi & Abedini are authorized to initiate legal proceedings. The plaintiff society is actively performing charitable activities like to provide relief to

2 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

the poor and needy persons by providing assistance by way of grants, gifts to the poor, orphans, widows and other persons deserving financial assistance. The plaintiff society also ensures that the religious places and grave yards are maintained properly, thus the plaintiff is basically a charitable institution utilizing their income or corpus of the society for the benefit of the general public. The plaintiff institution was established with a basic aims and objects of :-

a) Unity and co-operation between Iranis, Propagation of religion and protection of members;

b)To strengthen friendship and union among Iranis, protection of national culture and reformation, helping and monetary support to destitute and poor persons;

c)Help and support to needy persons and stronger Irani

Muslims;

d)Celebration of Festivals, Dinners, religious ceremonies and their providing expenses;

e)Acceptation of donations, municipal fees and gifts in order to achieve the aims and objects of the society which is mentioned in points (a) to (d).

Thus the plaintiff society is doing charitable activities for the benefit of poor and needy persons of the society keeping its objects in view for carrying out of the above charitable activities and constructed a complex by name ''Abol Fazl Complex'' at

Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. The flats constructed in the said complex are given on rent to Irani Muslim persons and income

3 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

from the rentals is used for carrying out of the charitable activities of the plaintiff society. The third floor bearing Flat

No.303 has been let out to defendant since 1997. The said premises is in the nature of residential house, so it is called as the suit schedule property. The defendant as on today they are paying the rent of Rs.3,217/- per month exclusive of electricity, water and maintenance charges. Since beginning, the defendant has been irregular in payment of rent and have been accumulating the rents for months together. The rents being paid by the defendant is also very meager and dis-proportionate to the actual market rent payable in the locality. Inspite of repeated requests by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the same and suddenly started depositing the total arrears in the bank account of the plaintiff without any permission or consent.

In the above circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice, dt.10.09.2013 terminating the tenancy of the defendant, though the said notice was received by the defendant, he did not give any reply or vacate the premises.

The tenancy is exempted from the provisions of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. The suit schedule property is in the nature of residential flats, therefore if it is let out to any-one it will easily fetch monthly rent of

Rs.10,000/-, therefore the plaintiff is claiming future mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month as the defendant failed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The

4 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

plaintiff herein is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court seeking the relief of recovery of vacant possession. Hence this suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement by submitting that the suit is neither maintainable under the facts or in law, hence liable to be dismissed in limini. The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff society has been established in the year of 1952 vide Registered No.2/1952 with a sole aim to provide relief to poor and needy for propagation religion and protection of its community members. The basic object of the establishment of the plaintiff is for charitable purpose but contrary to its aims and objects for which it was established.

The plaintiff did not fulfil its obligations in consonance with aims and objects entire Iranic community in Hyderabad including this defendant is under patronage under plaintiff's society registered in the year of 1952. This defendant belongs to Irani community as taken the lease of the suit property in the year of 1997 for residential purpose and at the time of inception of tenancy, the rent was of Rs.2,700/- and also deposited Rs.2,00,000/- for refundable amount. The rent has been enhanced from time to time, now the defendant is paying the rent of Rs.3,217/- exclusive of water and electricity consumption charges and this defendant is paying the rents regularly and at present depositing the rents into the bank account of the plaintiff on the name of ''Anjuman-e-Ittehad-e-Iranian-e-Hyderabad-e-Deccan''.

5 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

Therefore the allegations of the plaintiff is that this defendant is irregular in payment of rents is false and baseless and the plaintiff is not made the above said '' Anjuman-e-Ittehad-e-

Iranian-e-Hyderabad-e-Deccan '' party to the proceedings on that ground, the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. Further submitting that the defendant is paying the rents of Rs.3,217/- per month, therefore this Court has no jurisdiction. The plaintiff cannot take shelter of the provisions of

Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction )

Control Act, 1960 resort to filing of present suit before the

Hon'ble Court, the plaintiff has not placed a single document to

show that the plaintiff has been notified in the Andhra Pradesh

Gazette for exempting itself from the Provisions of Andhra

Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960.

In the absence of the same, the plaintiff cannot confer jurisdiction upon this Hon'ble Court and the notice, dt.10.09.2013 is not a valid notice in view of the fact that the provisions of Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960 is not applicable to be the suit schedule property, therefore any proceedings in pursuance of said defective notice is void and have no legal sanctity, therefore the present suit which is in pursuance of the legal notice, dt.10.09.2013 is liable to be dismissed. The person who signed on verified the plaint has no locus standie or competency to

6 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

institute the present suit as he does not possess valid authorization. The plaintiff taking the advantage of its constitution has filed the suit only with a malafide intention to evict the long standing tenants, therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the pleadings and material on record, this Court framed the following issues :-

i) Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to try the case ?

ii) Whether this suit is maintainable for non-joinder of proper and necessary party ?

iii) Whether the plaitniff is entitled to seek the

eviction as prayed for ?

iv) Whether the plaitniff is entitled to seek the

mesne profits as prayed for ?

v) To what relief ?

5.After framing of issues, one Authorized Signatory,

Mr. Mirza Abdul Rahim Abedini is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6.6.Heard both sides. Now the point for determination is :-

ISSUE NO.1:-

Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to try the case ?

The contention of plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a charitable institution registered Under Andhra Pradesh Societies

Registration Act, 2001 vide Registration No.893 of 2006. Since the plaintiff is a charitable trust, actively performing charitable activities like to provide the relief to the poor and needy persons

7 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

and also maintaining the grave-yards and religious places. The plaintiff society is purely established to give the assistance of

Irani Muslim persons, therfore the society constructed a complex at Purani Haveli by name '' Abol Fazl Complex '' and let out the flats to the different persons who are Irani muslim people. The defendant is a tenant in the third floor bearing Flat No.303 which is let out in the year of 1997. The defendant is paying the rents at present Rs.3,217/- per month but since beginning, the defendant is a defaulter in payment of monthly rents and has been accumulating the rents for months together. Therefore the plaintiff requested to pay the rents but the defendant without intimating to the plaintiff has been depositing the rents in the bank account of the plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice on 10.09.2013 by terminating the tenancy of the defendant though the defendant received the said notice but they did not give any reply and not vacated from the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is exempted from the provisions of Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, therefore the plaintiff filed this suit before this Court, even the rent of

Rs.3,217/- per month and the defendant is paying very meager amount but if the suit schedule property is let out in that locality, it will easily fetch the monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- per month, so the defendant is liable to pay the mesne profits of

Rs.10,000/- per month, hence requesting to pass a judgment

8 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

and decree in his favour.

7.On the other hand, the defendant contending that he is the tenant since 1997 and the plaintiff society has been established in the year of 1952 vide Registered No.2/1952, therefore they are comes under the Registration Act, 1952 but not 2006 and more-over the defendant has been paying the rents by way of deposits in the name of ''Anjuman-e-Ittehad-e-Iranian- e-Hyderabad-e-Deccan'', therefore this defendant is not the defaulter in payment of rents and more-over the admitted rent of

Rs.3,217/- per month. Therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which is comes under the Rent Control Act why because the plaintiff has not filed any single document to show that the suit schedule property is exempted Under Sec. 26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control

Act, 1960 and they failed to file any Gazette Notification before this Court to show that the suit schedule property is exempted from the Provisions of Sec. 26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. The person who representing on behalf of the plaintiff society has no locus standie because the signature on plaint as well as its affidavit belongs to the Secretary of the plaintiff society and the person who representing is a Honarary Secretary, therefore the PW1 is not having any locus standie to represent the matter, therefore this Court has no jurisdiction, hence it is liable to be dismissed.

8.As per the discussion above, there is a dispute with regard

9 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

to the jurisdiction. The contention of the plaitniff is that the suit schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble Court and the plaintiff is a charitable organization

registered in the name of the society under the provisions of

Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and the rent of

Rs.3,217/- per month. The suit schedule property is exempted under the provisions of Under Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, therefore the obligation of the provisions of the said Act, the defendant is not protected under the provisions of Sec.15 of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. To prove the said version, the plaitniff is examined as PW1 and cross- examined by the defendant's counsel. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the suit is filed on the basis of Societies

Registration Act, 2006 but the defendant's counsel strongly denied and submitted that the suit schedule property is registered under the Society Registration Act, 1952, therefore it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule property is registered previously under the Societies Registration

Act, 1952, thereafter it is registered under the Societies

Registration Act, 2006. Why because the defendant's counsel strongly denied and further submitting that the plaintiff society is registered under the Registraction Act, 1952 and the defendant is the tenant in the year of 1997, therefore the said

Act of 1952 is applicable to the defendant, so the suit is not

10 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

maintainable because the plaitniff filed the suit basing on the

Societies Registration Act, 2006. However, to prove the above said version or to dis-prove the version of defendant, the plaintiff has not produced any evidence but simply deposed in his cross- examination that the Societies Registration Act, 1952 and 2006 are one and the same. But on what basis, he deposed that these two acts are one and the same not explained to this Hon'ble

Court but he further deposed that the Government changed some laws, then the property is registered Under the

Registration Act, 2006 as per the advise of Chartered Accountant in the year of 2006, but who is the Chartered Accountant and what are the laws changed is not deposed properly why because the defendant is from the beginning they have taken a plea that this Court has no jursidcition and filed a petition in I.A.No.75 of 2014 for rejection of plaint but at the time of disposal of

I.A.No.75 of 2014, there was no evidence on record, therefore this Court given a finding that after letting evidence by both parties, it will be decided, therefore this Court framed a issue.

However, the defendant is contending that the rent is of

Rs.3,217/- per month, therefore this Court has no jurisdiction but the plaintiff contending that the suit schedule property is exempted Under Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease,

Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, therefore the contention of the plaintiff is that this Court has got jurisdiction in view of exemption Under Sec. 26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease,

11 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. As per Sec.26 of Andhra

Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, it is mentioned that '' Not-with-standing anything in this Act, the

Government may by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, exempt subject to such conditions and terms, if any, as they may satisfy in the notification, any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act ''. As per the said

Section, we can say that if any property is exempted Under

Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction )

Control Act, 1960, it has to be given in the Gazettee Notification, therefore if the suit schedule property herein is exempted Under

Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction )

Control Act, 1960, it has to be given in the Gazette Notification.

But in this case, the PW1 categorically stated that they have not given the suit schedule property in Andhra Pradesh Gazette

Notification but the witness simply said that all the charitable properties are exempted from Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease,

Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, but whereas the provision shows that the properties belongs to the charitable trusts are exempted Under Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease,

Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960 if those are notifies in A.P.

Public Gazette. But with regard to the jurisdiction, the plaintiff's counsel relied on the decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Mr.

Justice Rama Rao in the year of 1986 (1) ALT 438 , in between

Shyam Sunder Vs. Building Mosque Wakf Property and the

12 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

plaintiff contending that there is a blanket exemption Under

Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction )

Control Act, 1960, therefore the suit schedule property is also exempted. But on perusal of this decision delivered by the

Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the properties therein

are belongs to the wakf property but in this case as per the averments of plaint, the property is belongs to charitable trust.

Therefore the facts and circumstances of the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.R.P.No.132 of 1984, dt.11.02.1986 is different from the property in this case, therefore it is not applicable to this case. The further contention of plaintiff is that the defendant is not exemined any-one, therefore the adverse inference can be drawn Under Section 114 of Evidence Act but the defendant's counsel contending that the adverse inference cannot be drawn if the plaintiff himself failed to prove his case. Therefore the defendant filed some decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Courts reported in (AIR 2014 (2) ALD 157

Supreme Court ). The defendant further contending that non- examination of the party to the suit, no adverse inference can be drawn against a party merely because the party does not offer himself to be a witness. Therefore they relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2012 (2)

ALD 547, these decisions will be discussed at the time of discussion at Issue Nos.2 to 4. However, the plaintiff relied on

Exs.A1 to A7. Among these documents, the PW1 who is

13 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

representing on behalf of the plaintiff society is authorized under

Ex.A3. On perusal of the authorization letter, the suit schedule property is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1952 but not Under Societies Registration Act, 2006, therefore the

Ex.A3 is supporting the version of the defendant but not to the plaintiff.

9.Therefore on considering the above said facts and circumstances in view of this Court that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the plaintiff failed to file any single document or evidence to show that the property is previously registered Under the Registration Act, 1952 and thereafter it is registered Under the Societies Registration Act, 2006 and more-over, the plaintiff failed to file any Gazette

Notification and also failed to give any notice to the parties who are the tenants in the suit schedule property prior to the

Registration of suit schedule property under the Societies

Registration Act, 2006, why because the defendants are the tenants since the year of 1997. Therefore it is the duty and obligation of the plaintiff to give notice prior to registration of the suit property in the year of 2006. Therefore the defendant also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in between Andyes Corpus Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others in which it is categorically decided that the notice to the tenant is mandatory if the property is exempted Under

Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction )

14 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

Control Act, 1960. But in this case the plaintiff failed to follow the proceedure, so the plaintiff who approached this Court has to establish that this Court has got jurisdiction as the suit property is exempted Under Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, so he filed this case

before this Court even the rent of Rs.3,217/- per month but he

has not produced any evidence. Hence this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

10.ISSUE NOS.2 TO 4 :-

In view of the discussion at Issue No.1, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, hence there is no need to discuss or answer the Issue Nos. 2 to 4.

11.ISSUE NO.5 :-

In view of the Issue No.1, this Court has no jurisdiction, hence the plaint is returned to the plaintiff and to present the same before the proper Court or Forum.

12.IN THE RESULT, the plaint is returned to the plaintiff and to present the same before the proper Court or Forum within 30 days from the date of this judgment. In the circumstances, no costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of February, 2015.

Sd/-

M. ARUNA

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

15 OS.NO.2253 of 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT

PW1 Mirza Abdul Rahim Abedini- None -

Sd/-

M. ARUNA

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Certified copy of certificate of registration of the

Society.

Ex.A2True copy of the PAN Card of the Society.

Ex.A3Original of the Minutes of the Board Resolution, dt.02-09-2013.

Ex.A4Office copy of the legal notice, dt.10.09.2013.

Ex.A5Original acknowledgment card.

Ex.A6True extract of Statement of Bank Account for the period 18.07.2013 to 29.09.2014.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

- NIL -

Sd/-

M. ARUNA

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

DATED: MONDAY, THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

PRESENT: SMT. M. ARUNA, B.A.,LL.M.,

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S.NO. 2252 OF 2013

BETWEEN: Anjuman-e-Ittehade Iraniane Deccan, A Society registered Under A.P. Societies Registration Act 2001, rep. by its Honorary Secretary Mohammed Ali Namakubby. . . Plaintiff AND Mohammed Dashti . . . Defendant

This suit is coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri M. Papa Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri T. Suryakiran, Advocate for the Defendant and having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property and also for mesne profits of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of suit till the vacant possession to the plaintiff.

2.The brief averments of the plaint is that the plaintiff is a

Charitable Institution registered in the nature of society Under

Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 vide

Registration No.893 of 2006 and it is also Income Tax Assessees having independent PAN number. The minutes of the Board resulution authorizing Mohd. Ali, Namakubbi & Abedini are authorized to initiate legal proceedings. The plaintiff society is actively performing charitable activities like to provide relief to the poor and needy persons by providing assistance by way of

2 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

grants, gifts to the poor, orphans, widows and other persons deserving financial assistance. The plaintiff society also ensures that the religious places and grave yards are maintained properly, thus the plaintiff is basically a charitable institution utilizing their income or corpus of the society for the benefit of the general public. The plaintiff institution was established with a basic aims and objects of :-

a) Unity and co-operation between Iranis, Propagation of religion and protection of members;

b)To strengthen friendship and union among Iranis, protection of national culture and reformation, helping and monetary support to destitute and poor persons;

c)Help and support to needy persons and stronger Irani

Muslims;

d)Celebration of Festivals, Dinners, religious ceremonies and their providing expenses;

e)Acceptation of donations, municipal fees and gifts in order to achieve the aims and objects of the society which is mentioned in points (a) to (d).

Thus the plaintiff society is doing charitable activities for the benefit of poor and needy persons of the society keeping its objects in view for carrying out of the above charitable activities and constructed a complex by name ''Abol Fazl Complex '' at

Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. The flats constructed in the said

3 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

complex are given on rent to Irani Muslim persons and income from the rentals is used for carrying out of the charitable activities of the plaintiff society. The second floor bearing Flat

No.202 has been let out to defendants since 1997. The said premises is in the nature of residential house, so it is called as the suit schedule property. The defendant as on today they are paying the rent of Rs.2,200/- per month exclusive of electricity, water and maintenance charges. Since beginning, the defendant has been irregular in payment of rent and have been accumulating the rents for months together. The rents being paid by the defendant is also very meager and dis-proportionate to the actual market rent payable in the locality. Inspite of repeated requests by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the same and suddenly started depositing the total arrears in the bank account of the plaintiff without any permission or consent.

In the above circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice, dt.10.09.2013 terminating the tenancy of the defendants, though the said notice was received by the defendant, he did not give any reply or vacate the premises.

The tenancy is exempted from the provisions of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. The suit schedule property is in the nature of residential flats, therefore if it is let out to any-one it will easily fetch monthly rent of

Rs.10,000/-, therefore the plaintiff is claiming future mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month as the defendant failed to hand

4 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff herein is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court seeking the relief of recovery of vacant possession. Hence this suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement by submitting that the suit is neither maintainable under the facts or in law, hence liable to be dismissed in limini. The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff society has been established in the year of 1952 vide Registered No.2/1952 with a sole aim to provide relief to poor and needy for propagation religion and protection of its community members. The basic object of the establishment of the plaintiff is for charitable purpose but contrary to its aims and objects for which it was established. The plaintiff did not fulfil its obligations in consonance with aims and objects entire

Iranic community in Hyderabad including this defendant is under patronage under plaintiff's society registered in the year of 1952. This defendant belongs to Irani community as taken the lease of the suit property in the year of 1997 for residential purpose and at the time of inception of tenancy, the rent was of

Rs.1,500/- and also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- for refundable amount. The rent has been enhanced from time to time, now the defendant is paying the rent of Rs.2,200/- exclusive of water and electricity consumption charges and this defendant is paying the rents regularly and at present depositing the rents into the bank account of the plaintiff on the name of ''Anjuman-

5 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

e-Ittehad-e-Iranian-e-Hyderabad-e-Deccan''.Thereforethe allegations of the plaintiff is that this defendant is irregular in payment of rents is false and baseless and the plaintiff is not made the above said ''Anjuman-e-Ittehad-e-Iranian-e-

Hyderabad-e-Deccan '' party to the proceedings on that ground, the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Further submitting that the defendant is paying the rents of

Rs.2,200/- per month, therefore this Court has no jurisdiction.

The plaintiff cannot take shelter of the provisions of Sec.26 of

Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960 resort to filing of present suit before the Hon'ble Court, the plaintiff has not placed a single document to show that the plaintiff has been notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette for exempting itself from the Provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings

Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. In the absence of the same, the plaintiff cannot confer jurisdiction upon this Hon'ble

Court and the notice, dt.10.09.2013 is not a valid notice in view of the fact that the provisions of Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960 is not applicable to be the suit schedule property, therefore any proceedings in pursuance of said defective notice is void and have no legal sanctity, therefore the present suit which is in pursuance of the legal notice, dt.10.09.2013 is liable to be dismissed. The person who signed on verified the plaint has no

6 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

locus standie or competency to institute the present suit as he does not possess valid authorization. The plaintiff taking the advantage of its constitution has filed the suit only with a malafide intention to evict the long standing tenants, therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the pleadings and material on record, this Court framed the following issues :-

i) Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to try the case ?

ii) Whether this suit is maintainable for non-joinder of proper and necessary party ?

iii) Whether the plaitniff is entitled to seek the

eviction as prayed for ?

iv) Whether the plaitniff is entitled to seek the

mesne profits as prayed for ?

v) To what relief ?

5.After framing of issues, one Authorized Signatory,

Mr. Mirza Abdul Rahim Abedini is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6.

6.Heard both sides. Now the point for determination is :-

ISSUE NO.1:-

Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to try the case ?

The contention of plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a charitable institution registered Under Andhra Pradesh Societies

Registration Act, 2001 vide Registration No.893 of 2006. Since the plaintiff is a charitable trust, actively performing charitable activities like to provide the relief to the poor and needy persons

7 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

and also maintaining the grave-yards and religious places. The plaintiff society is purely established to give the assistance of

Irani Muslim persons, therfore the society constructed a complex at Purani Haveli by name '' Abol Fazl Complex '' and let out the flats to the different persons who are Irani muslim people. The defendant is a tenant in the second floor bearing Flat No.202 which is let out in the year of 1997. The defendant is paying the rents at present Rs.2,200/- per month but since beginning, the plaintiff is a defaulter in payment of monthly rents and has been accumulating the rents for months together. Therefore the plaintiff requested to pay the rents but the defendant without intimating to the plaintiff has been depositing the rents in the bank account of the plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice on 10.09.2013 by terminating the tenancy of the defendant though the defendant received the said notice but they did not give any reply and not vacated from the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is exempted from the provisions of Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, therefore the plaintiff filed this suit before this Court, even the rent of

Rs.2,200/- per month and the defendant is paying very meager amount but if the suit schedule property is let out in that locality, it will easily fetch the monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- per month, so the defendant is liable to pay the mesne profits of

Rs.10,000/- per month, hence requesting to pass a judgment

8 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

and decree in his favour.

7.On the other hand, the defendant contending that he is the tenant since 1997 and the plaintiff society has been established in the year of 1952 vide Registered No.2/1952, therefore they are comes under the Registration Act, 1952 but not 2006 and more-over the defendant has been paying the rents by way of deposits in the name of '' Anjuman-e-Ittehad-e-

Iranian-e-Hyderabad-e-Deccan '', therefore this defendant is not the defaulter in payment of rents and more-over the admitted rent of Rs.2,200/- per month. Therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which is comes under the

Rent Control Act why because the plaintiff has not filed any single document to show that the suit schedule property is exempted Under Sec. 26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease,

Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960 and they failed to file any

Gazette Notification before this Court to show that the suit schedule property is exempted from the Provisions of Sec. 26 of

Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. The person who representing on behalf of the plaintiff society has no locus standie because the signature on plaint as well as its affidavit belongs to the Secretary of the plaintiff society and the person who representing is a Honary Secretary, therefore the PW1 is not having any locus standie to represent the matter, therefore this Court has no jurisdiction, hence it is liable to be dismissed.

9 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

8.As per the discussion above, there is a dispute with regard to the jurisdiction. The contention of the plaitniff is that the suit schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble Court and the plaintiff is a charitable organization

registered in the name of the society under the provisions of

Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and the rent of

Rs.2,200/- per month. The suit schedule property is exempted under the provisions of Under Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, therefore the obligation of the provisions of the said Act, the defendant is not protected under the provisions of Sec.15 of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. To prove the said version, the plaitniff is examined as PW1 and cross- examined by the defendant's counsel. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the suit is filed on the basis of Societies

Registration Act, 2006 but the defendant's counsel strongly denied and submitted that the suit schedule property is registered under the Society Registration Act, 1952, therefore it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule property is registered previously under the Societies Registration

Act, 1952, thereafter it is registered under the Societies

Registration Act, 2006. Why because the defendant's counsel strongly denying and submitting that the plaintiff society is registered under the Registraction Act, 1952 and the defendant is the tenant in the year of 1997, therefore the said Act of 1952

10 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

is applicable to the defendant, so the suit is not maintainable because the plaitniff filed the suit basing on the Societies

Registration Act, 2006. However, to prove the above said version or to dis-prove the version of defendant, the plaintiff has not produced any evidence but simply deposed in his cross- examination that the Societies Registration Act, 1952 and 2006 are one and the same. But on what basis, he deposed that these two acts are one and the same not explained to this Hon'ble

Court but he further deposed that the Government changed some laws, then the property is registered Under the

Registration Act, 2006 as per the advise of Chartered Accountant in the year of 2006, but who is the Chartered Accountant and what are the laws changed is not deposed properly why because the defendants are from the beginning they have taken a plea that this Court has no jursidcition and filed a petition in

I.A.No.75 of 2014 for rejection of plaint but at the time of disposal of I.A.No.75 of 2014, there was no evidence on record, therefore this Court given a finding that after letting evidence by both parties, it will be decided, therefore this Court framed a issue. However, the defendant is contending that the rent is of

Rs.2,200/- per month, therefore this Court has no jurisdiction but the plaintiff contending that the suit schedule property is exempted Under Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease,

Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, therefore the contention of the plaintiff is that this Court has got jurisdiction in view of

11 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

exemption Under Sec. 26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease,

Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. As per Sec.26 of Andhra

Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, it is mentioned that '' Not-with-standing anything in this Act, the

Government may by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, exempt subject to such conditions and terms, if any, as they may satisfy in the notification, any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act ''. As per the said

Section, we can say that if any property is exempted Under

Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction )

Control Act, 1960, it has to be given in the Gazettee Notification, therefore if the suit schedule property herein is exempted Under

Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction )

Control Act, 1960, it has to be given in the Gazette Notification.

But in this case, the PW1 categorically stated that they have not given the suit schedule property in Andhra Pradesh Gazette

Notification but the witness simply said that all the charitable properties are exempted from Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease,

Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, but whereas the provision shows that the properties belongs to the charitable trusts are exempted Under Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease,

Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960 if those are given in Gazette

Notification. But with regard to the jurisdiction, the plaintiff's counsel relied on the decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Mr.

Justice Rama Rao in the year of 1986 (1) ALT 438 , in between

12 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

Shyam Sunder Vs. Building Mosque Wakf Property and the plaintiff contending that there is a blanket exemption Under

Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction )

Control Act, 1960, therefore the suit schedule property is also exempted. But on perusal of this decision delivered by the

Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the properties therein

are belongs to the wakf property but in this case as per the averments of plaint, the property is belongs to charitable trust.

Therefore the facts and circumstances of the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.R.P.No.132 of 1984, dt.11.02.1986 is different from the property in this case, therefore it is not applicable to this case. The further contention of plaintiff is that the defendant is not exemined any-one, therefore the adverse inference can be drawn Under Section 114 of Evidence Act but the defendant is contending that the adverse inference cannot be drawn if the plaintiff himself failed to prove his case. Therefore the defendant filed some decisions of the

Apex Courts reported in (AIR 2014 (2) ALD 157 Supreme

Court ). The defendant further contending that non-examination of the party to the suit, no adverse inference can be drawn against a party merely because the party does not offer himself to be a witness. Therefore they relied on the decision of the

Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2012 (2) ALD

547, these decisions will be discussed at the time of discussion at Issue Nos.2 to 4. However, the plaintiff relied on Exs.A1 to

13 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

A6. Among these documents, the PW1 who is representing on behalf of the plaintiff society is authorized under Ex.A3.

On perusal of the authorization letter, the suit schedule property is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1952 but not

Under Societies Registration Act, 2006, therefore the Ex.A3 is supporting the version of the defendant but not to the plaintiff.

9.Therefore on considering the above said facts and circumstances in view of this Court that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the plaintiff failed to file any single document or evidence to show that the property is previously registered Under the Registration Act, 1952 and thereafter it is registered Under the Societies Registration Act, 2006 and more-over, the plaintiff failed to file any Gazette

Notification and also failed to give any notice to the parties who are the tenants in the suit schedule property prior to the

Registration of suit schedule property under the Societies

Registration Act, 2006, why because the defendants are the tenants since the year of 1997. Therefore it is the duty and obligation of the plaintiff to give notice prior to registration of the suit property in the year of 2006. Therefore the defendant also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in between Andyes Corpus Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh and others in which it is categorically decided that the notice to the tenant is mandatory if the property is exempted

Under Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent &

14 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. But in this case the plaintiff failed to follow the proceedure, so the plaintiff who approached this

Court has to establish that this Court has got jurisdiction as the suit property is exempted Under Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, so he filed this case before this Court even the rent of Rs.2,200/- per month but he has not produced any evidence. Hence this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

10.ISSUE NOS.2 TO 4 :-

In view of the discussion at Issue No.1, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, hence there is no need to discuss or answer the Issue Nos.2 to 4.

11.ISSUE NO.5 :-

In view of the Issue No.1, this Court has no jurisdiction, hence the plaint is returned to the plaintiff and to present the same before the proper Court or Forum.

12.IN THE RESULT, the plaint is returned to the plaintiff and to present the same before the proper Court or Forum within 30 days from the date of this judgment. In the circumstances, no costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of February, 2015.

Sd/-

M. ARUNA

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

15 OS.NO.2252 of 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT

PW1 Mirza Abdul Rahim Abedini- None -

Sd/-

M. ARUNA

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Certified copy of certificate of registration of the

Society.

Ex.A2True copy of the PAN Card of the Society.

Ex.A3Original of the Minutes of the Board Resolution, dt.02-09-2013.

Ex.A4Office copy of the legal notice, dt.10.09.2013.

Ex.A5Original acknowledgment card.

Ex.A6True extract of Statement of Bank Account for the period 18.07.2013 to 29.09.2014.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

- NIL -

Sd/-

M. ARUNA

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

DATED: MONDAY, THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

PRESENT: SMT. M. ARUNA, B.A.,LL.M.,

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S.NO. 2251 OF 2013

BETWEEN: Anjuman-e-Ittehade Iraniane Deccan, A Society registered Under A.P. Societies Registration Act 2001, rep. by its Honorary Secretary Mohammed Ali Namakubby. . . Plaintiff AND

Hussain Fallah . . Defendant

This suit is coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri M. Papa Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri T. Suryakiran, Advocate for the Defendant and having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property and also for mesne profits of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of suit till the vacant possession to the plaintiff.

2.The brief averments of the plaint is that the plaintiff is a

Charitable Institution registered in the nature of society Under

Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 vide

Registration No.893 of 2006 and it is also Income Tax Assessees having independent PAN number. The minutes of the Board resulution authorizing Mohd. Ali, Namakubbi & Abedini are authorized to initiate legal proceedings. The plaintiff society is

2 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

actively performing charitable activities like to provide relief to the poor and needy persons by providing assistance by way of grants, gifts to the poor, orphans, widows and other persons deserving financial assistance. The plaintiff society also ensures that the religious places and grave yards are maintained properly, thus the plaintiff is basically a charitable institution utilizing their income or corpus of the society for the benefit of the general public. The plaintiff institution was established with a basic aims and objects of :-

a) Unity and co-operation between Iranis, Propagation of religion and protection of members;

b)To strengthen friendship and union among Iranis, protection of national culture and reformation, helping and monetary support to destitute and poor persons;

c)Help and support to needy persons and stronger Irani

Muslims;

d)Celebration of Festivals, Dinners, religious ceremonies and their providing expenses;

e)Acceptation of donations, municipal fees and gifts in order to achieve the aims and objects of the society which is mentioned in points (a) to (d).

Thus the plaintiff society is doing charitable activities for the benefit of poor and needy persons of the society keeping its objects in view for carrying out of the above charitable activities

3 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

and constructed a complex by name '' Abol Fazl Complex '' at

Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. The flats constructed in the said complex are given on rent to Irani Muslim persons and income from the rentals is used for carrying out of the charitable activities of the plaintiff society. The third floor bearing Flat

No.301 has been let out to defendant since 1997. The said premises is in the nature of residential house, so it is called as the suit schedule property. The defendant as on today he is paying the rent of Rs.3,000/- per month exclusive of electricity, water and maintenance charges. Since beginning, the defendants have been irregular in payment of rent and have been accumulating the rents for months together. The rents being paid by the defendants are also very meager and dis- proportionate to the actual market rent payable in the locality.

Inspite of repeated requests by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the same and suddenly started depositing the total arrears in the bank account of the plaintiff without any permission or consent. In the above circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice, dt.10.09.2013 terminating the tenancy of the defendant, though the said notice was received by the defendant, he did not give any reply or vacate the premises. The tenancy is exempted from the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent &

Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. The suit schedule property is in the nature of residential flats, therefore if it is let out to any-one

4 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

it will easily fetch monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-, therefore the plaintiff is claiming future mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month as the defendant failed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff herein is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court seeking the relief of recovery of vacant possession. Hence this suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement by submitting that the suit is neither maintainable under the facts or in law, hence liable to be dismissed in limini. The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff society has been established in the year of 1952 vide Registered No.2/1952 with a sole aim to provide relief to poor and needy for propagation religion and protection of its community members. The basic object of the establishment of the plaintiff is for charitable purpose but contrary to its aims and objects for which it was established. The plaintiff did not fulfil its obligations in consonance with aims and objects entire

Iranic community in Hyderabad including these defendants are under patronage under plaintiff's society registered in the year of 1952. This defendant belongs to Irani community as taken the lease of the suit property in the year of 1997 for residential purpose and at the time of inception of tenancy, the rent was of

Rs.2,500/- and also deposited Rs.2,00,000/- for refundable amount. The rent has been enhanced from time to time, now the defendant is paying the rent of Rs.3,000/- inclusive of water and electricity consumption charges and this defendant is

5 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

paying the rents regularly and at present depositing the rents into the bank account of the plaintiff on the name of ''Anjuman- e-Ittehad-e-Iranian-e-Hyderabad-e-Deccan''.Thereforethe allegations of the plaintiff is that this defendant is irregular in payment of rents is false and baseless and the plaintiff is not made the above said '' Anjuman-e-Ittehad-e-Iranian-e-

Hyderabad-e-Deccan '' party to the proceedings on that ground, the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Further submitting that the defendant is paying the rents of

Rs.3,000/- per month, therefore this Court has no jurisdiction.

The plaintiff cannot take shelter of the provisions of Sec.26 of

Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960 resort to filing of present suit before the Hon'ble Court, the plaintiff has not placed a single document to show that the plaintiff has been notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette for exempting itself from the Provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings

Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. In the absence of the same, the plaintiff cannot confer jurisdiction upon this Hon'ble

Court and the notice, dt.10.09.2013 is not a valid notice in view of the fact that the provisions of Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960 is not applicable to be the suit schedule property, therefore any proceedings in pursuance of said defective notice is void and have no legal sanctity, therefore the present suit which is in

6 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

pursuance of the legal notice, dt.10.09.2013 is liable to be dismissed. The person who signed on verified the plaint has no locus standie or competency to institute the present suit as he does not possess valid authorization. The plaintiff taking the advantage of its constitution has filed the suit only with a malafide intention to evict the long standing tenants, therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the pleadings and material on record, this Court framed the following issues :-

i) Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit ?

ii) Whether this suit is maintainable for non-joinder of proper and necessary party ?

iii) Whether the plaitniff is entitled to seek the

eviction as prayed for ?

iv) Whether the plaitniff is entitled to seek the

mesne profits as prayed for ?

v) To what relief ?

5.After framing of issues, one Authorized Signatory,

Mr. Mirza Abdul Rahim Abedini is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6.

6.Heard both sides. Now the point for determination is :-

ISSUE NO.1:-

Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to

entertain the suit ?

The contention of plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a charitable institution registered Under Andhra Pradesh Societies

Registration Act, 2001 vide Registration No.893 of 2006. Since

7 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

the plaintiff is a charitable trust, actively performing charitable activities like to provide the relief to the poor and needy persons and also maintaining the grave-yards and religious places. The plaintiff society is purely established to give the assistance of

Irani Muslim persons, therfore the society constructed a complex at Purani Haveli by name '' Abol Fazl Complex '' and let out the flats to the different persons who are Irani muslim people. The defendant is a tenant in the second floor bearing Flat No.301 which is let out in the year of 1997. The defendant is paying the rents at present Rs.3,000/- per month but since beginning, the defendant is a defaulter in payment of monthly rents and has been accumulating the rents for months together. Therefore the plaintiff requested to pay the rents but the defendant without intimating to the plaintiff has been depositing the rents in the bank account of the plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice on 10.09.2013 by terminating the tenancy of the defendant though the defendant received the said notice but he did not give any reply and not vacated from the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is exempted from the provisions of Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, therefore the plaintiff filed this suit before this Court, even the rent of

Rs.3,000/- per month and the defendant is paying very meager amount but if the suit schedule property is let out in that locality, it will easily fetch the monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- per

8 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

month, so the defendant is liable to pay the mesne profits of

Rs.10,000/- per month, hence requesting to pass a judgment and decree in his favour.

7.On the other hand, the defendant contending that he is the tenant since 1997 and the plaintiff society has been established in the year of 1952 vide Registered No.2/1952, therefore they are comes under the Registration Act, 1952 but not 2006 and more-over the defendant has been paying the rents by way of deposits in the name of '' Anjuman-e-Ittehad-e-

Iranian-e-Hyderabad-e-Deccan '', therefore this defendant is not the defaulter in payment of rents and more-over the admitted rent of Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which is comes under the Rent

Control Act why because the plaintiff has not filed any single document to show that the suit schedule property is exempted

Under Sec. 26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent &

Eviction ) Control Act, 1960 and they failed to file any Gazette

Notification before this Court to show that the suit schedule property is exempted from the Provisions of Sec. 26 of Andhra

Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960.

The person who representing on behalf of the plaintiff society has no locus standie because the signature on plaint as well as its affidavit belongs to the Secretary of the plaintiff society and the person who representing is a Honary Secretary, therefore the PW1 is not ha ving any locus standie to represent the matter,

9 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

therefore this Court has no jurisdiction, hence it is liable to be dismissed.

8.As per the discussion above, there is a dispute with regard to the jurisdiction. The contention of the plaitniff is that the suit schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble Court and the plaintiff is a charitable organization

registered in the name of the society under the provisions of

Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and the rent of

Rs.3,000/- per month. The suit schedule property is exempted under the provisions of Under Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, therefore the obligation of the provisions of the said Act, the defendant is not protected under the provisions of Sec.15 of Andhra Pradesh

Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. To prove the said version, the plaitniff is examined as PW1 and cross- examined by the defendant's counsel. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the suit is filed on the basis of Societies

Registration Act, 2006 but the defendant's counsel strongly denied and submitted that the suit schedule property is registered under the Society Registration Act, 1952, therefore it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule property is registered previously under the Societies Registration

Act, 1952, thereafter it is registered under the Societies

Registration Act, 2006. Why because the defendant's counsel

10 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

strongly denying and further submitting that the plaintiff society is registered under the Registraction Act, 1952 and the defendant is the tenant in the year of 1997, therefore the said

Act of 1952 is applicable to the defendant, so the suit is not maintainable because the plaitniff filed the suit basing on the

Societies Registration Act, 2006. However, to prove the above said version or to dis-prove the version of defendant, the plaintiff has not produced any evidence but simply deposed in his cross- examination that the Societies Registration Act, 1952 and 2006 are one and the same. But on what basis, he deposed that these two acts are one and the same not explained to this Hon'ble

Court but he further deposed that the Government changed some laws, then the property is registered Under the

Registration Act, 2006 as per the advise of Chartered Accountant in the year of 2006, but who is the Chartered Accountant and what are the laws changed is not deposed properly why because the defendant is from the beginning he has taken a plea that this

Court has no jursidcition and filed a petition in this suit,

I.A.No.75 of 2014 for rejection of plaint but at the time of disposal of I.A.No.75 of 2014, there was no evidence on record, therefore this Court given a finding that after letting evidence by both parties, it will be decided, therefore this Court framed a issue. However, the defendant contending that the rent is of

Rs.3,000/- per month, therefore this Court has no jurisdiction but the plaintiff contending that the suit schedule property is

11 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

exempted Under Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease,

Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, therefore the contention of the plaintiff is that this Court has got jurisdiction in view of exemption Under Sec. 26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease,

Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. As per Sec.26 of Andhra

Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, it is mentioned that '' Not-with-standing anything in this Act, the

Government may by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, exempt subject to such conditions and terms, if any, as they may satisfy in the notification, any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act ''. As per the said

Section, we can say that if any property is exempted Under

Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction)

Control Act, 1960, it has to be given in the Gazettee Notification, therefore if the suit schedule property herein is exempted Under

Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction)

Control Act, 1960, it has to be given in the Gazette Notification.

But in this case, the PW1 categorically stated that they have not given the suit schedule property in Andhra Pradesh Gazette

Notification but the witness simply said that all the charitable properties are exempted from Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease,

Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, but whereas the provision shows that the properties belongs to the charitable trusts are exempted Under Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease,

Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 if those are given in Gazette

12 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

Notification. But with regard to the jurisdiction, the plaintiff's counsel relied on the decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Mr.

Justice Rama Rao in the year of 1986 (1) ALT 438 , in between

Shyam Sunder Vs. Building Mosque Wakf Property and the plaintiff contending that there is a blanket exemption Under

Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction )

Control Act, 1960, therefore the suit schedule property is also exempted. But on perusal of this decision delivered by the

Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the properties therein

are belongs to the wakf property but in this case as per the averments of plaint, the property is belongs to charitable trust.

Therefore the facts and circumstances of the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.R.P.No.132 of 1984, dt.11.02.1986 is different from the property in this case, therefore it is not applicable to this case. The further contention of plaintiff is that the defendant is not exemined any-one, therefore the adverse inference can be drawn Under Section 114 of Evidence Act but the defendant contending that the adverse inference cannot be drawn if the plaintiff himself failed to prove his case. Therefore the defendant filed some decisions of the

Apex Courts reported in (AIR 2014 (2) ALD 157 Supreme

Court ). The defendant further contending that non-examination of the party to the suit, no adverse inference can be drawn against a party merely because the party does not offer himself to be a witness. Therefore they relied on the decision of the

13 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2012 (2) ALD

547, these decisions will be discussed at the time of discussion at Issue Nos.2 to 4. However, the plaintiff relied on Exs.A1 to A6.

Among these documents, the PW1 who is representing on behalf of the plaintiff society is authorized under Ex.A3. On perusal of the authorization letter, the suit schedule property is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1952 but not Under

Societies Registration Act, 2006, therefore the Ex.A3 is supporting the version of the defendants but not to the plaintiff.

9.Therefore on considering the above said facts and circumstances in view of this Court that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the plaintiff failed to file any single document or evidence to show that the property is previously registered Under the Registration Act, 1952 and thereafter it is registered Under the Societies Registration Act, 2006 and more-over, the plaintiff failed to file any Gazette

Notification and also failed to give any notice to the parties who are the tenants in the suit schedule property prior to the

Registration of suit schedule property under the Societies

Registration Act, 2006, why because the defendant is the tenant since the year of 1997. Therefore it is the duty and obligation of the plaintiff to give notice prior to registration of the suit property in the year of 2006. Therefore the defendant also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

14 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

between Andyes Corpus Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others in which it is categorically decided that the notice to the tenant is mandatory if the property is exempted Under Sec.26 of

Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960. But in this case the plaintiff failed to follow the proceedure, so the plaintiff who approached this Court has to establish that this Court has got jurisdiction as the suit property is exempted Under Sec.26 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease,

Rent & Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, so he filed this case before this Court even the rent of Rs.3,000/- per month but he has not produced any evidence. Hence this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

10.ISSUE NOS.2 TO 4 :-

In view of the discussion at Issue No.1, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, hence there is no need to discuss or answer the Issue Nos. 2 to 4.

11.ISSUE NO.5 :-

In view of the Issue No.1, this Court has no jurisdiction, hence the plaint is returned to the plaintiff and to present the same before the proper Court or Forum.

12.IN THE RESULT, the plaint is returned to the plaintiff and to present the same before the proper Court or Forum within 30

15 OS.NO.2251 of 2013

days from the date of this judgment. In the circumstances, no costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of February, 2015.

Sd/-

M.ARUNA

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT

PW1 Mirza Abdul Rahim Abedini- None -

Sd/-

M.ARUNA

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Certified copy of certificate of registration of the

Society.

Ex.A2True copy of the PAN Card of the Society.

Ex.A3Original of the Minutes of the Board Resolution, dt.02-09-2013.

Ex.A4Office copy of the legal notice, dt.10.09.2013.

Ex.A5Original acknowledgment card.

Ex.A6True extract of Statement of Bank Account for the period 18.07.2013 to 29.09.2014.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

- NIL -

Sd/-

M.ARUNA

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.