Nandikonda Narsing Rao

PRINCIPAL SPE AND ACB CASES CUM IV ACJ

HYD, City SmallCauses Court Complex · Hyderabad · Telangana

Nandikonda Narsing Rao, PRINCIPAL SPE AND ACB CASES CUM IV ACJ, is posted at HYD, City SmallCauses Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 249 court orders on record since 2024. 1 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, MA, RCA cases.

249

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

RCA/21/2024

Robert Anthony vs Mohammed Hameed

04 Nov 2024

1 RCA.21/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE: CITY SMALL

CAUSES COURT: AT HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 4 th Day of NOVEMBER, 2024.

Present: SRI NANDIKONDA NARSING RAO,

CHIEF JUDGE.

(FAC) Addl. Chief Judge.

R.C.A. No.21 OF 2024

Between:

1. Robert Anthony, S/o. Late Victor Antony, 44 years, Driver, R/o. CIB Quarter No. SRT-98, MCH No.10-1-12/9, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad.

2. Teena, W/o. Robert, 37 years, Business, R/o. CIB Quarter No. SRT-98, MCH No.10-1-12/9, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad.

3. Mario, S/o. Late Victor Anthony, 37 years, Business, R/o. CIB Quarter No. SRT-98, MCH No.10-1-12/9, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad.

4. James, S/o. Late Victor Anthony, 47 years, Business, R/o. CIB Quarter No. SRT-98, MCH No.10-1-12/9, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad.

...Appellants/Respondents.

And

Mohammed Hameed, S/o. Mohammed Iqbal, 32 years, Tailor, R/o. 8-2-740/11/2, Bhola Nagar, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

...Respondent/Petitioner.

Appeal against the order dated 20-02-2024 passed in R.C. No. 282 of

2014 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes

Court, Hyderabad.

Between: Mohammed Hameed… Petitioner 2 RCA.21/2024

And

1. Robert

2. Teena

3. Mario

4. James.… Respondents.

This appeal is listed before me for a final hearing in the presence of Sri

Y. Krishna Mohan Rao, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Gopal Rao

Patil, Advocate for Respondent and having been stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred by the appellants/respondents/tenants under Section 20(1) of Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control

Act, 1960, being aggrieved by the eviction orders passed by the learned II

Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.C. No.282

of 2014 dated 20.02.2024.

2.The appellants are the respondents/tenants and the respondent herein is the petitioner in R.C. No.282/2014. For the sake of convenience the appellant and the respondent shall be referred to as ‘petitioner’ and ‘respondents’ and they are arrayed in trial court.

3.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are the tenants of a portion of house bearing No.SRT 98 bearing Municipal No.10-1-12/9, admeasuring 36.50 sq. yards or 30.51 sq.

3 RCA.21/2024 meters situated at A.C. Guards, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as petition schedule premises). The petition schedule premises is self acquired of the petitioner having purchased the same through registered sale deed vide document No.1860 of 2014 dated 28.4.2014. The tenancy between the petitioner and respondents is being oral and there is no written rental agreement and the rent was fixed at Rs.3000/- per month commencing from

May 2014. As per the petitioner, the respondents have paid one month rent ie., for the month of May 2014 and subsequently the respondents failed to pay the monthly rent and there being no advance with the petitioner. The respondents have failed to pay the subsequent rent and when ever the petitioner demanded for payment of rent to the respondents, the respondents engaged some rowdy sheeters and anti-social elements and used to threaten the petitioner. Further, the respondents have stopped paying rent from June 2014 till the date of filing of the present petition which they have withhold wilfully, deliberately. In spite of incessant demands of the petitioner, the respondents did not choose to pay the rent wilfully, deliberately and wantonly. As such the petitioner is entitled to seek eviction of the respondents on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. It is also further contended that the leased premises is in a dilapidated condition and endanger not only to inmates but also to the pass byers and the petitioner in fact required the petition schedule premises for personal occupation. In spite of repeated demand, the respondent did not choose to 4 RCA.21/2024 vacate the premises, as such the present eviction petition is filed seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default.

4.The respondents filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition and that they are not the tenants of the portion of the petition schedule premises as contended by the petitioner and that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondents and the said contention of the petitioner is only a created and concocted for the purpose of evicting the respondents from the petition schedule premises and the allegations made by the petitioner are false and baseless and also denied about the purchase of the petition schedule premises by the petitioner. The said sale deed is got created and concocted by the vendors under the said alleged sale deed in collusion with the petitioner by suppressing the factum of the pendency of O.S. No.995/2012 seeking relief of recovery of possession of the very same suit schedule property on the file of

V Sr. Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed by the vendors of the petitioner against the respondents herein. It is also pertinent to mention that the vendors of the petitioner themselves filed the above suit against the respondents herein. It is also further contended that as the very suit is filed seeking relief of recovery of possession filed by the vendor of the petitioner, the question of delivery of possession to the petitioner herein by the respondents has to be explained by the petitioner. As such the alleged sale deed dated 28.4.2014 under which the petitioner is claiming ownership is hit 5 RCA.21/2024 by doctrine of lis pendence as per Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. It is further contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenants and no rental agreement existing between the parties. Having aware of the fact that they cannot succeed in O.S. No.995/2012, the vendors of the petitioner have sold the property to the petitioner herein during the pendency of the said lis.

It is further contended that the allegation that the rent was fixed initially at

Rs.3,000/- per month commencing from May 2014 and the respondents paid rent for one month for the month of May 2014 are also denied. It is further contended that the respondents herein are the purchasers of the suit schedule property and in continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the same since 1998 and the said factum was also admitted by the vendors of the petitioner in O.S. No.995/2012 on the file of V Sr. Civil Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad. The alleged story of the landlord and tenant is only cooked up for the purpose of the above R.C. and that there is no landlord and tenants relationship between the parties. It is further contended that the respondent herein claiming title of the property and contended that the husband of the vendor No.1 of the petitioner and father of the vendor Nos. 2 to 4 of the petitioner during his life time being the owner and possessor had executed notarized agreement of sale dated 25.5.1998 in favour of Victor Anthony who is the father of the respondents by receiving entire sale consideration and as on the date of execution of the agreement of sale, the peaceful and vacant possession of the house property admeasuring 40 sq. yards was delivered in favour of Victor Anthony and since then Victor Anthony during his life time 6 RCA.21/2024 along with the respondents and after his demise the respondents are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the house property admeasuring 40 sq. yards which factum is also in the knowledge of the vendors of the petitioner including the petitioner and every one in the locality is aware of the same. It is further submitted that late Victor Anthony during his life time obtained electricity and water connections and thereby paying the relevant charges to the concerned departments and after his demise the respondents herein are paying the same to concerned authorities. After the demise of

D.Lawrence, the vendors of the petitioner developed an eyesore to grab the house property admeasuring 40 sq. yards, from the possession of the respondents and in continuation of such intention after a lapse of nearly 14 years from the date of execution of agreement of sale got filed O.S.

No.995/2012 seeking the relief of recovery of possession with all false and untenable allegations. It is also admitted that execution of agreement of sale by late D.Lawrence in favour of the father of the respondents herein in the said suit. The petitioner’s vendor came to a conclusion that there are no changes of they being successful as such in collusion with the petitioner got created and concocted the alleged sale deed and got filed the above R.C.

against the respondent.

5.It is further contended that under the guise of the said sale deed the petitioner in collusion with the electricity authority got changed the name in the electricity records behind the back of the respondents. It is further 7 RCA.21/2024 contended that as the vendors of the petitioner already executed agreement of sale cum GPA dated 9.6.2010 bearing document No.1954 of 2010 in favour of the petitioner even prior to the filing of the suit in O.S. No.995/2012 and deliberately the vendors of the petitioner had suppressed the same in the said suit and the petitioner also suppressed the said fact of the AGPA subsisting in his favour in the present R.C. Thus, on the fact of it, it is crystal clear that there is any amount of collusion between the petitioner and his vendors who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.995/2012 in creating the alleged sale deed for the purpose of filing the present R.C. It is further contended that there is a dispute of title between the parties which is a subject matter of O.S.

No.995/2012 and as such this court has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of title. It is further contended that there is no cause of action and the petition is beyond limitation and there is no jurisdiction as there is no landlord and tenant relationship and prayed this court to dismiss the petition.

6.During the course of trial, the petitioner himself was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-19. On behalf of the respondents, initially one Mario filed chief affidavit and subsequently it was eschewed and

Smt. Teena and Alexander Richard were examined as RW-2 and RW-3 and got marked Ex.R-1 to R-15.

7.After considering the averments, evidence placed on record and after hearing both parties, the learned II Additional Rent Controller, City Small 8 RCA.21/2024

Causes Court came to a conclusion that the respondents are liable for eviction on the ground of wilful default and denial of title and as such eviction of the respondents was ordered in respect of the petition schedule premises.

8.Being aggrieved by the said eviction order passed by the learned

Rent Controller in R.C. No.282/2014, the present appeal is preferred on the following grounds:

(i)That the learned Rent Controller did not consider the evidence placed by the appellants/respondents and erred in holding that Ex.P-5 legal notice

dated 22.12.2014 issued by the respondent/petitioner by stating that the

respondents have committed wilful default from June 2014 and Ex.P-6 proof of service of legal notice though the same was denied by the respondent. The

Rent Controller ought to have seen that the petitioner failed to file any proof of service of notice on the appellants/respondents. The court below ought to have seen that the petitioner failed to refer in his petition and also in the chief affidavit with regard to documents marked on behalf of petitioner except Ex.P1 sale deed and it is also settled law when there is no pleadings any amount of evidence led cannot be considered.

(ii)That there is no proof of service of Ex.P5 legal notice on the appellants/respondents and mere filing of postal receipts does not prove the service of legal notice under Ex.P6 when the respondents have denied about the receiving of legal notice and that the alleged electricity and property tax bills which are filed by the petitioner did not reflect in the petition and his 9 RCA.21/2024 evidence affidavit which are filed subsequent to the eviction petition, therefore they would not have considered in passing the eviction order. The

Rent Controller ought to have considered that during the cross examination of RW2 they have deposed that they were tenants in the year 1990, but subsequently her father-in-law Victor Antony purchased the petition schedule property under Ex.R5 agreement of sale dt.25.5.1998 and physical possession was delivered to Victor Antony, the same is mentioned in Ex.R5.

(iii)That the Rent Controller erred in holding that basing on the oral admission of RW2 and Ex.P5 and P6 there is relationship of landlord and tenants. The Rent Controller ought to have seen that the alleged fabricated sale deed marked as Ex.P1, whereas the appellants/respondents were in possession of the petition schedule premises 9 years prior to Ex.R5 agreement of sale as tenants. The Rent Controller failed to see that Ex.P1 sale deed is invalid in eye of law and no credence could be given to the said sale deed. The court below ought to have dismissed the eviction petition by holding that there is no jural relationship between parties as landlord and tenants as the said allegation is concocted for the purpose of filing of the eviction petition against the respondents in collusion with vendor of the petitioner.

(iv)The court below ought to have seen that the vendors of the petitioner filed O.S. No.995 of 2012 for recovery of possession from the appellants/respondents and the same was dismissed as not pressed after filing of the eviction petition by the petitioner, therefore there is no chance 10 RCA.21/2024 for the vendors of the appellants/respondents to deliver possession to petitioner. Therefore, the possession of delivery of petition schedule premises under sale deed under Ex.P1 to respondent/petitioner and let out the same to the appellants/respondents does not arise.

(v)The court below did not consider that the agreement of sale dt.25.5.1998 was sent for collection of deficit stamp duty and the same was paid by appellants/respondents which is marked as Ex.R5. The court below failed to see that about Ex.R6, PW1 deposed that he did not know about filing of O.S.No.995/2012 by the vendors of petitioner. That PW1 during the cross examination pleaded ignorance about Ex.R5 agreement of sale dt.25.5.1998 and its contents. The court below ignored about the admission of PW1 regarding tenancy, and the date and month of purchase of the property.

Therefore, it is clear that petitioner has no knowledge as to date of purchase of property and the court below erred in passing the eviction order. The court below failed to see that Ex.P1 does not disclose the delivery of possession.

Ex.P9 speaks for delivery of possession, but PW1 deposed that under Ex.P9 he did not take possession. The court below did not consider the decision placed by appellants/respondent in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1908 and 2004 (1) ALD 93 TS. The court below ought to have seen that agreement of sale, delivery of possession by the owner D. Lawrence and non-delivery of possession to complete the sale deed under Ex.P1 is purely civil in nature and the Rent

Controller would not have ventured to pass eviction orders. Hence, prayed to 11 RCA.21/2024 allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned eviction orders passed by the

II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

9.After registering the same as R.C.A. No.21 of 2024, notice was given to the respondent and the respondent appeared before this court through his counsel and after receiving the records from the lower court.

10.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents and the learned counsel fo the respondent/petitioner .

11.Now the points that arise for consideration before this court are as follows:

(1) Whether there exists any jural relationship between petitioner and respondents as landlord and tenants?

(2) Whether the respondents have committed wilful default in payment of rent from June 2014 till filing of the R.C.

(3) To what relief?

POINT NO.1

12.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents and the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner. Perused the entire material placed on record.

12 RCA.21/2024

13.The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are the tenants of the petition schedule premises and that the petitioner was absolute owner of a portion of quarter bearing No.SRT 98 bearing Municipal

No.10-1-12/9, situated at A.C. Guards, Hyderabad, and that the respondent was inducted into possession of the petition schedule premises as tenants on monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- in the month of May 2014 for a period of 11 months. Admittedly, the tenancy is oral and without any advance. Though the respondents have paid the rent for the month of May 2014 subsequently from June, 2014 the respondents did not choose to make the payments in spite of repeated demands made by the petitioner and that the respondents are dodging the matter on one pretext or the other. Further, the petitioner has called for the respondents to pay the arrears of rent from June 2014, but they did not choose to pay the arrears of rent and in turn they are claiming title and possession over the petition schedule premises and the respondents are contended that they are the lawful owners and they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property in an extent of 36 sq. yards and that the original owner D.Lawrence during his life time sold the schedule premises through agreement of sale in favour of Victor Antony who is the father of the respondent and subsequently both D.Lawrence and Victor Antony died and the respondents being the legal heirs of the Victor Antony are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule premises as purchasers as possession was delivered by the vendor of the petitioner. It is further contended that it is settled law without delivery of possession, the said deal is invalid. It is also 13 RCA.21/2024 denied by the respondent that the petitioner has purchased the said property vide document No.1860 of 2014 dated 28.4.2014 in collusion with his vendor.

Further the said sale deed is hit by doctrine of lis pendence as per Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act.

14.The main contention of the respondents is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant as claimed by the petitioner in between the petitioner and respondent and in the absence of the same the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed. He also denied about the payment of monthly rent @ Rs.3,000/- for the month of May 2014. The husband of the vendor No.1 of the petitioner during his life time being the owner and possessor had executed notarized agreement of sale dated 25.5.1998 in favour of Victor Anthony who is the father of the respondents by receiving entire sale consideration and in pursuance of the same they have also obtained electricity and water connections to the said property and they are paying the charges as per the demand by the concerned authorities. The said factum is very well know to the petitioner and his vendor.

15.The entire crux of the case is that admittedly both the parties are claiming title over the petition schedule premises and the petitioner has claimed the title to the said property basing on the registered sale deed which is said to have executed by the vendor of the respondent in favour of the petitioner and in pursuance of the said sale deed, the petitioner became 14 RCA.21/2024 owner of the petition schedule premises. Whereas, the respondents are contended that they purchased the said property from the vendor of the petitioner who executed Notarized agreement of sale in their favour. It is also borne out from the record and admitted fact that the respondents are already in possession of the petition schedule premises much prior to the date of agreement of sale and also the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

It is also an admitted fact that prior to the execution of agreement of sale, the status of the respondents in the said property is as tenants of the vendor of the petitioner. The main contention of the respondents is that once the agreement of sale was executed by the vendor of the petitioner and under the said agreement of sale possession was also delivered to the respondents pursuant to the agreement of sale. As such the respondents are staying in the petition schedule premises as owners of the said property and their status and their possession over the said property is changed from tenants to owners of the said property.

16.In support of the contention of the respondents, the respondent

No.2, Smt.Teena who is the daughter-in-law of Victor Anthony was examined as RW-2. She reiterated the contents of the counter and claims that she is the legal heir of Victor Anthony and also stated that they are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule premises and the possession of the same was delivered to them by the vendor of the petitioner. No doubt any sale after execution of the sale deed the possession automatically follows. But in 15 RCA.21/2024 the present case admittedly the respondents are staying in the petition schedule premises much prior to the date of agreement of sale.

17.It is also an admitted fact that earlier the respondents have paid the rent to the vendor of the petitioner and that they are in possession of the premises much prior to 1998. Though the respondents have relied on Exs.R8 to R15, the said documents show the possession of the respondents in the petition schedule premises and the said documents which clearly show that the original ration card, death certificate of Victor Anthony, death certificate of Stella who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of RW-2 and also

Aadhaar cards and application to the water works department seeking connection and acknowledgement receipt dated 15.4.2015, gas connection receipt and the summons which are received by the respondents in

O.S.NO.1184/2010. The said documents do prove the possession of the

respondents over the petition schedule premises, but the aspect that the respondents are claiming that they are in possession of the premises as owners cannot be agreed for the reason that mere possession of the respondents over the petition schedule premises purely basing on the agreement of sale cannot be accepted. More over the respondents have already agreed that they were in possession of the said property and the same was let out by the vendor of the petitioner as tenants. It is also admitted by RW2 in the cross examination that Victor Anthony, who is her father-in-law and father of the other respondents obtained the petition 16 RCA.21/2024 schedule premises on monthly rental basis in the year 1990. She also admitted that Victor Anthony came into petition schedule premises as tenant in the year 1990. Basing on the agreement of sale they have obtained electricity connection and paid the electricity charges till 2015 and later on the same was transferred in the name of the petitioner. It is also admitted by

RW2 that presently the electricity meter connection stands in the name of the petitioner since 2015. Admittedly, the father-in-law of RW2 did not pay any property tax and that they never paid any property tax and the present property tax is standing in the name of the petitioner till date. The entire documentary evidence which is relied on by the respondents would only show the nature of possession as admitted by the respondents.

18.The learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision in “Bondar Singh and others vs. Nihal Singh and others” reported in AIR 2003

Supreme Court 1905 and contended that the said possession though the said agreement of sale is not a registered document it can be looked into for the purpose of collateral purpose as to know the nature and status of possession of the respondents over the petition schedule premises. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the respondents are in possession of the petition schedule premises and there is no quarrel regarding the agreement of sale which can be looked into for collateral purpose to consider the nature of possession.

17 RCA.21/2024

19.The learned counsel for the respondents also relied on another decision in “Mohammed Hafeezuddin vs. M.A. Hafeez Quadri and others”, reported in 2024 (1) ALD 88 (TS). The point which was dealt in the said case was the trial court insisted for payment of deficit stamp duty at very inception of suit is, therefore totally erroneous and contrary to law. It is also further relied on at para No.11 of the said judgment that:

“It is settled law that the nature of any document has to be decided basing upon the contents of the said document, but not by the mere nomenclature of the said document or from the purpose for which such document is being relied upon by any of the parties to the said document. In order to treat any document as a simple Sale Deed, the basic requirements to be satisfied are:-

(i) Conveyance of title

(ii) Delivery of possession

(iii) Passing of consideration”

20.The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued and reiterated that as on the date of purchase of the property by the petitioner, the respondents are already in possession of the property and further argued that the said agreement of sale cannot be looked into for any purpose except the nature of possession. In the present case admittedly the respondents have already admitted about the existence of tenancy and no steps have been taken by the respondents to get the said agreement of sale into registered sale deed by filing the relevant suit seeking specific performance of agreement of sale. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents did not pay any property tax, the petitioner 18 RCA.21/2024 paid the property tax. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the agreement of sale is not proved though the respondents are in possession of the petition schedule premises and that they have paid the entire sale consideration, why the respondents did not choose to get the registered sale deed executed and that the respondents have not shown any reasons before this court in support of the same.

21.Further under an unregistered document no title can be claimed and it is submitted that the title of the petitioner is basing on the registered sale deed and contended that the petitioner would be in better position as to the title comparing to the respondents as the title of the respondents over the petition schedule premises is only basing on the agreement of sale as the respondents have not perfected their title. Though it is contended that in view of the delivery of possession pursuant to the agreement of sale the said agreement has to be treated as a sale deed. The petitioner is in better title though it is got executed subsequently. Further, the petitioner has contended that the respondents have agreed and accepted the petitioner as owner. Though respondent No.2 was examined as RW2 and the evidence of

RW2 appears to be a here say evidence and it is not a direct evidence. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the Clause (2) of Ex.R5, it is mentioned physical possession was delivered as such it is compulsorily registerable document. The possession of the respondent cannot be stated as better rather than the possession of the petitioner.

19 RCA.21/2024

Though the petitioner contended that the respondents have paid one month rent ie., for the month of May 2014, but nothing has placed no doucment is placed to show that the rent was paid to the petitioner by the respondents.

Though the respondents claiming title basing on the agreement of sale, but no better title can be passed on the agreement of sale. As such the respondents knowing fully well that the petitioner is having better title basing on the registered sale deed, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner cannot be treated as owner and claiming themselves as owners basing on the agreement of sale can be treated as denying the title of the petitioner over the petition schedule premises with mala fide intention and that there cannot be any alteration of possession of the respondents in view of the agreement of sale. Though it is contended that in the agreement of sale a clause was mentioned that the possession was delivered to the respondents. Admittedly, on the factual aspects that the respondents are already in possession of the premises as tenants. In the absence of any conversion of status of the respondents over the petition schedule premises, as such it can be safely concluded that the respondents are the tenants of the petitioner and they continued to be the tenants in view of the registered sale deed and admittedly the law being well settled that there cannot be any specific attornment of tenancy. Once the tenancy was admitted by the respondents in view of the execution of registered sale deed there shall be automatic attornment of tenancy in respect of the respondents as tenants.

20 RCA.21/2024

22.As per the decision in “Shankaramma and others Vs.

Mohammed Abdul Hameed” reported in 2006(5) ALD 345, where in it was held that “Tenancy automatically follows on sale of property and attornment is not a per-requisition and title transfers to purchaser on purchase of the property transfer of landlord entitled to collect the rent as of right and he is a landlord under the inclusive definition. Denial of title by tenants not bonafide in view of registered sale deed in favor of purchaser- landlord”.

In view of the proposition of law in the above judgment, it can be safely concluded that the denial of title of the petitioners by the respondents amounts to mala fide denial. Hence, considering the entire documents and oral evidence placed by the petitioner and in view of the admission of RW2 it can be safely concluded that there exists jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioner and respondents, as such the petitioner is entitled for eviction of the respondents on this ground. This point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

POINT NO.2

23.It is the contention of the petitioner is that initially the rent for the petition schedule premises was Rs.3000/- per month and the tenancy is commenced from May 2014 and the respondents paid one month rent ie., for the month of May 2014 and thereafter committed default in payment of rent from June 2014 till the date of filing of the present eviction petition. Hence, the respondents are liable to be evicted from the petition schedule premises 21 RCA.21/2024 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. The contention of the respondents is that they are not the tenants of the petitioner and they never paid any rent to the petitioner and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule premises as owners basing on the agreement of sale and that they never paid any rent to the petitioner. The respondents further contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondents.

24.In view of the considered opinion of this court in point No.1 that there exists jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioner and respondents and the denial of the title of the petitioner by the respondents is not bona fide, hence once the tenancy is admitted and proved, the respondents are bound to pay the rents. Admittedly, no rents have been paid by the respondents from June 2014. As such it can be safely concluded that the respondents have committed wilful default in payment of rent.

Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the eviction of the respondents from the petition schedule premises on this ground also. Therefore, I do not see any grounds to differ with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and the findings of the learned Rent Controller is based on the proper appreciation of evidence which does not require any interference of this court. Hence, on considering the entire material placed and also on proper analysis of the evidence placed on record and the relevant decisions, I do not see any grounds to interfere, consequently the appeal falls to the ground. This point 22 RCA.21/2024 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

POINT NO.3

25.In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs confirming the orders passed by the II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes

Court, Hyderabad, in R.C. No.282 of 2014 dated 20.2.2024. The respondents/ tenants are directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to petitioner/landlord within three months from the date of passing of the judgment.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on 4th November, 2024.

Sd/-

(FAC) ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE

CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT

HYDERABAD.

pdrs

Order Record 238 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
MVOP/812/2024	K. Devula vs T. Deveswara Reddy	21 Jan 2025	Other	—
MVOP/813/2024	K. Lali vs T. Deveswara Reddy	21 Jan 2025	Other	—
MVOP/824/2024	K. Sindhu vs T. Deveswara Reddy	21 Jan 2025	Other	—
MVOP/395/2021	B.Venkateshwar Rao vs A.Selladurai	20 Jan 2025	Other	—
MVOP/497/2021	B.Phani Kumar vs A. Selladurai	20 Jan 2025	Other	—
MA/66/2024	G. Vengal Rao vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner	20 Jan 2025	Orders	—
MVOP/797/2020	Ibrahim Mohammed vs Sundharam Maouleswar Reddy B	17 Jan 2025	Other	—
MVOP/159/2018	K.Saroja vs K.Venkatesh	07 Jan 2025	Award	—
MVOP/611/2018	D.Narsimulu vs C.Venkata Rao	06 Jan 2025	Award	—
MVOP/174/2020	Rapolu Vanitha vs T.Rajendra	03 Jan 2025	Other	—
MVOP/204/2014	K. Radhika Pai vs G. Krishna Kumar	03 Jan 2025	Award	—
MVOP/212/2019	Mohd Shoukathullah vs G.Ganesh	03 Jan 2025	Award	—
MVOP/428/2022	Molakala Madhu vs M/s Raghava Constructions India Private Limited.,	03 Jan 2025	Other	—
MVOP/633/2023	Irfan Ansari vs Jubilee Cemix RMC	03 Jan 2025	Other	—
MA/109/2024	Venu Gopal Loya vs The Deputy COmmissioner (GHMC)	03 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
RCA/2/2024	Anil Agarwal vs Sudheer Gupta	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
MVOP/2448/2023	Jahangeer Shaik Alias Jahangir vs Venkateshwara Containers	30 Dec 2024	Orders	—
MA/88/2024	Golla Srisailam vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep., by its Commissioner	30 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
MVOP/191/2019	Gadha Suman vs Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd	27 Dec 2024	Orders	—
MVOP/820/2019	V.Renuka vs A.Radha Krishna	27 Dec 2024	Award	—
MVOP/985/2021	G Yadagiri and another vs P Prashanth and another	27 Dec 2024	Orders	—
MVOP/1907/2022	Kanumuri Krishnaveni vs SJNR Constructions	27 Dec 2024	Orders	—
MVOP/1921/2018	Abdul Aziz Khan Ali vs K.Srinu	27 Dec 2024	Orders	—
MVOP/300/2024	Mattagunja Manasa vs Harimanikyam Bhaktavastalarao	23 Dec 2024	Orders	—
MVOP/2345/2018	Zainab Bee Shaik vs Sohail Shaik	23 Dec 2024	Orders	—
MA/66/2024	G. Vengal Rao vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner	23 Dec 2024	Decree	—
MA/99/2024	Hiten R. Dedhia vs The Commissioner GHMC	23 Dec 2024	Award	—
MVOP/1748/2023	Bommagani Rohan vs M/s. K.N. Infra	20 Dec 2024	Orders	—
MVOP/1772/2024	B. Ilesh vs Kuthadi Naveen	20 Dec 2024	Orders	—
MVOP/2269/2022	Fareed Patel vs V.Vikram Kumar	20 Dec 2024	Orders	—
MVOP/2225/2024	Pathlavath Jyothi vs Care Utility Products Pvt. Ltd.	20 Dec 2024	Orders	—
MVOP/18/2022	G.Sanjeev vs Bharath Quality Engineers.,	17 Dec 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/2133/2017	Kadari Jangaiah vs K.Srinu	17 Dec 2024	Award	—
MVOP/2601/2017	H.Prabhu kumar vs Bollepally srikanth	17 Dec 2024	Award	—
MVOP/2602/2017	H.Prabhu kumar vs Bollepally sreekanth	17 Dec 2024	Award	—
MA/96/2024	Welfare Association of Rain Tree Park Rep by its General Secretary vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep by its Commissioner	16 Dec 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/644/2019	Bejjanaboina Lakshmi @ Laxmamma vs Surakanti Yadi Reddy	13 Dec 2024	Award	—
MA/98/2024	Shankuntala Bai vs The commissioner GHMC,	13 Dec 2024	Award	—
MVOP/1745/2023	Chenna Bathula Anjamma vs Channabattula Swamy	09 Dec 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/2382/2018	P.Tulsiram alias Tulja vs Laxma Reddy.A	09 Dec 2024	Award	—
MVOP/2383/2018	J.Shankar vs A.Laxma Reddy	09 Dec 2024	Award	—
MVOP/1460/2019	Maddula Thirupathi Reddy vs Md. Firoz Dawal Mulani	03 Dec 2024	Decree	—
MA/76/2024	Sri Satyanarayana Yadav Pediboyina vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Coproration, Rep. by its Commissioner,	03 Dec 2024	Award	—
MA/102/2024	Gopal Gupta vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by Dy. Commissioner	03 Dec 2024	Award	—
MVOP/420/2019	V.Shankaraiah vs MD. Nazir Khan	02 Dec 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/1698/2019	T.Beeraiah vs K.Kondanna	02 Dec 2024	Decree	—
MA/83/2024	Theme Ambience Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Rep. by its Director, Mr. Ayush Kedia vs The Commissioner, Greater Hyderbad Municipal Corporation	02 Dec 2024	Award	—
MA/24/2024	Vijaya Bharathi School, Rep. by its Secreatary and Correspondent, Mr Ch. Vasudeva Rao. vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commisssioner	29 Nov 2024	Award	—
MVOP/119/2023	Pathlavath Bicha vs M/s Swagath Steel Traders	28 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/643/2019	B.Mallikarjun vs A.Koteswari	28 Nov 2024	Orders	—
MVOP/1020/2018	Ram Prasad Kathariya vs U.Krishna	28 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/186/2022	Koochana Koushik Kumar vs Anand Viswanathan	26 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/278/2020	D.Sammakka vs Nagaraju Kasturi	26 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/1696/2019	Laxmi K vs Ji Sainad	26 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/1801/2019	B.Srinivas vs Mohammed Shafe	26 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MA/63/2024	G. Latha vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation	26 Nov 2024	Award	—
MVOP/984/2021	Seemakurthi Jhansi Rani vs Prasad Bhukya	25 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/1321/2021	Pratti Sri Rama Vara Prasad vs Prsad Bhukya	25 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/1405/2021	Pratti Sri Rama Vara Prasad vs Prsad Bhukya	25 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MA/44/2024	Muddapuram Ramesh vs The Greater Hyderabad Muncipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner	25 Nov 2024	Award	—
MA/44/2024	Muddapuram Ramesh vs The Greater Hyderabad Muncipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner	25 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MA/108/2024	Thatikonda Vasantha vs The Greater Hyderbad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner	25 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/1506/2023	Suresh Kumar Nisthala vs Anitha G.	22 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/2436/2014	B. Shiva Kumar vs Chimakurti Ramesh	22 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/31/2022	Savkuri Beeravva vs Raghavapoor Vijaya Laxmi	21 Nov 2024	Award	—
MVOP/2150/2017	B.Alivelu vs K.Srinu	21 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/2509/2017	I.Padma vs K.Srinu	21 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/2844/2017	U.Shekar vs Srinu Kanugula	21 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MA/56/2024	Shaik Khaisar Mahboob vs The Geater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner	21 Nov 2024	Award	—
MA/60/2024	K. Murali Krishna vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner	21 Nov 2024	Award	—
MVOP/300/2024	Mattagunja Manasa vs Harimanikyam Bhaktavastalarao	19 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/876/2018	B.Goneaiah vs G.Srinu	19 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/1047/2023	Gundu Chandraiah vs Karampudi Vikaram	19 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/1080/2019	Likhith Chaithanya. B vs Venu Gopal Reddy G	19 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/1563/2019	Nikhil KUmar K vs Vishnu B	19 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/2042/2019	S. Shyam Sunder vs Sajid Ali	19 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/2081/2021	Shaik Mubeena Begam vs A.Yesudas	19 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/2208/2018	Venkatesh Joshi vs Abdul Waseem	19 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/204/2014	K. Radhika Pai vs G. Krishna Kumar	18 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MA/77/2024	K. Narsimha vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Comissioner	18 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/113/2018	A.Sandeep vs K.Veerabhadraiah	14 Nov 2024	Award	—
MVOP/640/2014	M. Divya Sri alias Kavya vs Venkat Reddy A.	14 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/1320/2019	C.Subbamma vs B.Ramudu	14 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/1456/2019	Maddula Kavitha vs Md. Firoz Dawal Mulani	14 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/2007/2019	P. Uday Sri vs Ashraf Ali Mohammed	14 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/2045/2021	Ameena Bee vs Sattar Patel	14 Nov 2024	Orders	—
MVOP/362/2024	T. Nageswari Alias T. Maheshwari vs C. Mohan	12 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/1995/2014	Sripada Laxmikantham vs Laxmi Uskamalla	12 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/3103/2021	K.Kapildev vs P.Naveen Kumar	12 Nov 2024	Orders	—
MA/91/2024	Praveen Kerthi Kumari vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep., by its Commissioner	12 Nov 2024	Award	—
MVOP/752/2024	J. Anil Kumar vs P. Natraj	08 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/2088/2018	Gauramma vs Laxman Roopchand Pawar	08 Nov 2024	Award	—
MVOP/412/2018	Naravarjula sumithra vs Munnangi kasturibabu	07 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/2335/2023	Katta Venkteswara Rao vs Munna Yadav	07 Nov 2024	Orders	—
MVOP/293/2018	M.srinivas Raju vs Vsponamala kirshna	05 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/294/2018	K.peddi Raju vs Vsponamal krishna	05 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/172/2021	J.Anitha vs Y.Raveendra Reddy	04 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/1275/2018	Md. Sumera vs Md. Shahed alias Shahid Mohammed	04 Nov 2024	Decree	—
MVOP/2684/2018	Mettu Rebeca vs G.Raj Kumar	04 Nov 2024	Decree	—
RCA/21/2024	Robert Anthony vs Mohammed Hameed	04 Nov 2024	Award	—

Showing 100 of 238 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jan 2025		15
Dec 2024		34
Nov 2024		58
Oct 2024		34
Sep 2024		56
Aug 2024		22
Jul 2024		22
Jun 2024		8

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Nandikonda Narsing Rao handled?

Nandikonda Narsing Rao has handled 249 court orders since 2024 at HYD, City SmallCauses Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 28 orders per month.

What types of cases does Nandikonda Narsing Rao hear?

Based on available records, Nandikonda Narsing Rao primarily handles Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (RCA, Execution Petitions) at HYD, City SmallCauses Court Complex.

Where is Nandikonda Narsing Rao currently posted?

Nandikonda Narsing Rao is posted as PRINCIPAL SPE AND ACB CASES CUM IV ACJ at HYD, City SmallCauses Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by Nandikonda Narsing Rao available online?

Yes. 1 judgment by Nandikonda Narsing Rao are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Nandikonda Narsing Rao dispose cases?

Nandikonda Narsing Rao disposes approximately 28 cases per month, based on 249 orders handled over their tenure at HYD, City SmallCauses Court Complex.

Since when is Nandikonda Narsing Rao serving?

Nandikonda Narsing Rao has been serving at HYD, City SmallCauses Court Complex since 2024.

Case Types

MVOP 61%

MA 31%

RCA 7%

EP 0%

Posting History

Apr 2024 — Jan 2025

PRINCIPAL SPE AND ACB CASES CUM IV ACJ · 240 orders
Apr 2024 — Jan 2025

ADDITIONAL SPE AND ACB CASES CUM V ACJ · 9 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt N. Saswatha

Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Jud...

131 orders

Sri. B. Rama Rao

Addl. Judge-cum-VI Senior Civil Judge.

119 orders

K.kusha

CHIEF JUDGE CITY SMALL CAUSES COURT HYDERABAD

265 orders

← View all judges at HYD, City SmallCauses Court Complex