Ms T Nagarani
Prl. Rent Controller
SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex · Hyderabad · Telangana
MS T NAGARANI, Prl. Rent Controller, is posted at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 387 court orders on record since 2021. 43 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles RCC, EP, OS cases.
Featured Judgments
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present:T. Nagarani,
Principal Rent Controller,
Hyderabad. FAC II Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2023.
R.C.No.23 of 2014
Between: Misbahuddin (Riyaz) S/o.Mohd Hameeduddin, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.8-1-366/A/17, Janaki Nagar Colony, Towlichowki, Hyderabad.
….Petitioner AND
1. Vishwanath Anney (died per Lrs)
2. Sunil Kumar Anney S/o. Vishwanath Anney, Aged 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o.4-5-60, Koti Womens College Road, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.
…. Respondents
This petition is filed U/s.10(2) of of the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act for eviction of the respondent in respect of premises bearing No.4–5-60 (Ground floor) admeasuring 406 square feet (including common areas) together with undivided share land admeasuring 22 square yards situated at Hashmath Gunj, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri T. Bheem Reddy Advocate for the Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
O R D E R
In view of orders passed in I.A.No.91/2019 which was filed for rejection of main RC and the same was allowed, hence this RC petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, correct and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of October, 2023.
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
,,.NIL….
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present:T. Nagarani,
Principal Rent Controller,
Hyderabad. FAC IV Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2022.
I.A.No.45 of 2022
IN
R.C.No.11 of 2016
Between:
1. Smt. Devi Bai W/o. Radheshyam Agarwal, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o.21-2-114, Gulzar House, Charkaman, Hyderabad – Telangana State.
2. Smt. Sangeetha W/o. Prem Kumar Agarwal, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.21-2-114, Gulzar House, Charkaman, Hyderabad – Telangana State.
….Petitioners/Respondents AND
Umesh Kumar Agarwal S/o. Mukund Lal, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, Rep by its GPA holder Mr. Devender Kumar S/o. Sri Mukund Lal, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.1184, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500 033. …. Respondent/Petitioner
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Ram Babu, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri R.A. Achuthanand Advocate for the Respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
Heard and perused. This is a petition filed by the petitioners, who are the respondents in the main RC to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross examination. On the other hand, the respondent denied the same by stating that the petitioners herein intentionally dragged the matter by filing petitions after petitions knowing fully well that it is a very old matter.
On perusal, it reveals that the cross examination of PW.1 closed by the court on 20.6.2022 and thereafter the petitioners herein filed the present petition to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross examination along with another petition to stay of proceedings. The respondent opposed the same.
Where, no prejudice is going to cause to any of the parties and in the interest of justice to give one more opportunity to both the parties to contest the matter to decide on merits this court is inclined to allow the petition by reopening the evidence of respondent/petition er for the purpose of cross examination of PW.1 with a direction to cross examine PW.1 by the petitioners herein on next date of posting without fail and imposed cost of Rs.1000/- which paid to PW.1.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed conditionally on cost of Rs.1000/- ( Rupees One Thousand only) and directing to cross -examine PW1 next date without fail.
For payment of cost and for cross examination of PW.1 call on 6.7.2022.
Typed to my dictation, correct and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of July, 2022.
FAC IV ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: T. Nagarani, Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad. FAC I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2021
I.A.No.120 of 2021
IN
R.C.No.286 of 2015
Between:
1. Kota Kishore Kumar S/o. Late Kota Satyanarayana Gupta, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, Plot No.98/B, Sri Krupa Market, Mahboob Mansion, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
2. Kota Shravan Kumar S/o. Late Satyanarayana Gupta, Hindu, Aged about 39 years,Plot No.98/B, Sri Krupa Market, Mahboob Mansion, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
3. Kota Tirumal Rao S/o. Shri K. Venkata Rama Murthy, Hindu, Aged about 63 years, Occ: Business,Plot No.98/B, Sri Krupa Market, Mahboob Mansion, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
4. Kota Rushi Keshawara Rao S/o. Shri K. Venkata Rama Murthy, Hindu, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business,Plot No.98/B, Sri Krupa Market, Mahboob Mansion, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
5. Kota Venu Gopal S/o. Shri K. Venkata Rama Murthy, Hindu, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business,Plot No.98/B, Sri Krupa Market, Mahboob Mansion, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
6. Kota Uma Maheshwar S/o. Shri K. Venkata Rama Murthy, Hindu, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business,Plot No.98/B, Sri Krupa Market, Mahboob Mansion, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
..Petitioners/Petitioners
A n d
M/s Sri Pasdmavathi Traders, Represented by Shri M. Srinivas S/o. M. yadagiri, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, carrying in shop No.98/A, Sri Krupa Market, Mahboob Mansion, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is filed under section 151 CPC by the petitioners praying the court to grant leave to the petitioners to file rejoinder and the rejoinder be taken on record.
This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.A. Achuthanand, Advocate for the petitioners/Petitioners and of Sri Ch. Ramesh Advocate for the respondent/ respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Counsel for both present, counter filed. Heard and on perusal, this is a rejoinder filed by the petitioner to give opportunity by the court, though it is placed as regular I.A. by giving number, but this rejoinder is an opportunity given to the petitioner where court already directed to file rejoinder if any.
Hence, the office is directed to check and put up whether the filed rejoinder is in proper way and receive the rejoinder. Accordingly, this petition is allowed to permit to file rejoinder.
written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of November, 2021.
FAC I ADDL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2021
S.R.No.15 of 2021
IN
R.C.No.202 of 2015
Between: 21st Century Furnitures & Interiors Rep by its Proprietor Bahadur Ali Meghjaini, Hyderabad.
..Petitioner
A n d
1. Smt. Zakia Begum W/o. Late Mohd Abdul Nayeem, Household,
2. Umm-epSalma D/o. Late Mohd Abdul Nayeem Household,
3. Mohammed Abdul Aziz @ Mohd Umer S/o. Late Mohd Abdul Nayeem, Business,
4. Abdul Rahman S/o. Late Mohd Abdul Nayeem, Being minor rep by his mother Smt. Zakia Begum
All are R/o. H.NO.8-1-346/10/3, Sabza Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad.
…. Respondents
This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition is filed under Order XII Rule 5 and 6 read with section 151 CPC and again corrected to Section 11(1) of RC Act praying the court to grant permission for deposit of admitted rent @ Rs.3000/- per month from June 2015 till disposal of the case.
The petitioner herein filed similar application under Rule 5(1) of RC Act on 19.8.2015 vide I.A.No.222/2015 praying the court to allow the petition and grant permission to the petitioner to deposit the accrued rent of Rs.9000/- from June 2015 to August 2015 @ Rs.3000/- per month and also future rents in respect of petition schedule property.
When the petition vide IASR No.1520/2021 was returned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted arguments by stating that I.A.No.222/2015 is different from the present petition as in the present petition, he is asking permission for deposit of admitted rents and argued that the present petition is maintainable under Order XII Rule 5 & 6 read with section 151 CPC, but the same was strikeout by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and in place of Order XII Rule 5 & ^ read with section
151 CPC, it was corrected as Section 11(1) of RC Act.
Perused the entire material on record. Though the learned counsel
for the petitioner argued that in the present petition it is filed to permit the
petitioner for deposit of admitted rents, but the matter is coming for respondent evidence and it is not yet decided what is admitted rent. After perusal of I.A.No.222/2015, it is found that the prayer in the present petition and I.A.No.222/2015 is one and the same, as such the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.
Moreover, the petitioner herein filed the present petition after five years of gap, as the main RC is filed in the year 2015 and the respondent filed the counter in the year 2016 and after four years the petitioner is filing the present petition. Moreover, I.A.No.222/2015 is pending and in that petition also same prayer to deposit the rent @ Rs.3000/- per month from June 2015. Hence, the present petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of January, 2021.
I ADDL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2020
R.C.No.16 of 2014
Between: Vikram Raj S/o. Jasraj Shrishrimal, Hindu, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Profession, R/o.H.No.15-1-503/C/10, 4th floor, Ashok Market, Feel Khana, Hyderabad.
..Petitioner
A n d
Mr. Harish Shahani S/o. Late Waliram Dayaram Shahani, Partner of M/s Hotel Imperial, Hindu, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business, in premises No.5-8-107/A/3, Nampally Station Roa, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.A. Achuthanand Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Both counsel are present. Petitioner is present and filed memo by stating that possession of PSP is delivered by respondent and prayed to dismiss the RC.
Perused the memo and verified petitioner’s aadhar card. In view of the memo, this petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of December, 2020.
FAC II ADDL RENT
CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2020
R.C.No.17 of 2014
Between:
Jainender Raj S/o. Jasraj Shrishrimal, Hindu, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Profession, R/o.H.No.15-1-503/C/10, 4th floor, Ashok Market, Feel Khana, Hyderabad.
..Petitioners
A n d
Mr. Harish Shahani S/o. Late Waliram Dayaram Shahani, Partner of M/s Hotel Imperial, Hindu, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, in premises No.5-8-107/A/3, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.A. Achuthanand Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Both counsel are present. Petitioner is present and filed memo by stating that possession of PSP is delivered by respondent and prayed to dismiss the RC.
Perused the memo and verified petitioner’s aadhar card. In view of the memo, this petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of December, 2020.
FAC II ADDL RENT
CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2020
R.C.No.60 of 2015
Between:
1. Vikram Raj S/o. Jasraj Shrishrimal, Hindu, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Profession, R/o.H.No.15-1-503/C/10, 4th floor, Ashok Market, Feel Khana, Hyderabad.
2. Jainender Raj S/o. Jasraj Shrishrimal, Hindu, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Profession, R/o.H.No.15-1-503/C/10, 4th floor, Ashok Market, Feel Khana, Hyderabad.
..Petitioners
A n d
Mr. Harish Shahani S/o. Late Waliram Dayaram Shahani, Partner of M/s Hotel Imperial, Hindu, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business, in premises No.5-8-107/A/3, Nampally Station Roa, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.A. Achuthanand Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Both counsel are present. Petitioners are present and filed memo by stating that possession of PSP is delivered by respondent and prayed to dismiss the RC.
Perused the memo and verified petitioners aadhar cards. In view of the memo, this petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of December, 2020.
FAC II ADDL RENT
CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2020
I.A.No.201 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.27 of 2018
Between: M/s L. Chimanlal Rep. By its partner; Sri Gautam Chand S/o. Late Kishore Chand Jain Aged about 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.15-9-469, Mahboob Gunj, Hyderabad, T.S.
..Petitioner/Respondent
A n d
Naveen Kumar S/o. Mool Shankar Aged about 32 years, Occ: Advocate R/o. H.No.15-6-267/1, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, T.S., …. Respondent/Petitioner
This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Syed Altaf Mehdi,, Advocate for the petitioner/Respondent and of Sri Hari Hara Kumar, Advocate for the respondent/ Petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with section 151 CPC praying the court to appoint an advocate commissioner for the purpose of local inspection, not down the physical features, ascertain the municipal number of the petition schedule property and measurements of the petition schedule property and to take photographs and to file the report in the present RC by stating that the respondent herein filed the main RC against the petitioner herein by stating that he is the tenant in respect of portion of mulgi admeasuring 666 square feet in premises bearing No.15-9-485 to 15-9-495, Mahboobgunj, Hyderabad, whereas he filed detailed counter by contending that he is the tenant in respect of municipal bearing No.15-9-466 which is admeasuring 436 sft., and not 666 sft., and further stated that it is not mulgi, but it is a residential portion with doors and windows but not with shutters and there is no electricity and water connection to the same. Hence, this petition.
On the other hand, the respondent filed counter by stating that the present petition is not maintainable and further submitted that to appoint an advocate commissioner to make local inspection, note down the physical features, ascertain the municipal number of petition schedule property is not necessary and the same can be identified with photographs and there is no need to appoint an advocate commissioner as there is no dispute with regard to jural relationship . The respondent herein filed photographs of the petition schedule property and further submitted that he is claiming the portion of mulgi in which the petitioner herein is tenant admeasures only 436 sft., but not 666 sft., in municipal No.15-9-466, but the details furnished by him in the main petition includes common passage to the schedule mulgi and it is a portion of municipal number 15- 9-485 to 15-9-495 not in 15-9-466 and the plea taken by the petitioner herein is only to confuse the court and prays the court to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
Heard arguments of both the learned counsels.
Perused petition, counter and contentions of both the counsels. On considering the facts and circumstances of the petition as there is dispute with regard to municipal number and measurements of the petition schedule property and nature of property, this court is of the opinion that appointment of an advocate commissioner will clarify the doubt with regard to petition schedule property and no prejudice and harm will be caused to other side if the advocate commissioner is appointed. Moreover, the petitioner herein is ready to bear the expenses. Hence, this court inclined to allow this petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds.
In the result, the petition is allowed. Mr. Md. Afzal Pasha, Advocate is appointed as an advocate commissioner for the purpose of local inspection, not down the physical features, ascertain the municipal number of the petition schedule property and measurements of the petition schedule property and to take photographs. His fee is fixed at Rs.3000/- directly payable by the petitioner/respondent. The advocate commissioner is directed to file his report on or before 12.3.2020.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of February, 2020.
I ADDL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2020
R.C.No.112 of 2015
Between: P. Kaushik Chandra S/o. Late P. Narayan Rao, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Service, R/o.22-1-759/A, Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad.
..Petitioner
A n d
Syed Asad Ali S/o. Syed abdul Abbas, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Business, M.No.22-1-943, Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Suhasini, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Srinivas Chamla, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Both counsel and parties are present. Petitioner not pressed the petition as matter settled as out of court. Hence, this petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of March, 2020.
FAC II ADDL RENT
CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2020
R.C.No.111 of 2015
Between: P. Kaushik Chandra S/o. Late P. Narayan Rao, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Service, R/o.22-1-759/A, Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad.
..Petitioner
A n d
Syed Asad Ali S/o. Syed abdul Abbas, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Business, M.No.22-1-944, Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Suhasini, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Srinivas Chamla, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Both counsel and parties are present. Petitioner not pressed the petition as matter settled as out of court. Hence, this petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of March, 2020.
FAC II ADDL RENT
CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. D. Sarala Kumari, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2004
E.P. No.21 of 2003
IN
O.S.No.4488 of 1999
Between: M/s Shriram Chits(P) Ltd.
.. Decreeholder
A n d P. Guruprasad and three others. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Indrasen, Advocate for decreeholder and of Sri P. Satyanarayanai, Advocate for the judgmentholder No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
No representation. EP is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of September, 2004.
For Sri Smt. D. Sarala Kumari, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. M.K. Padmavathi, XII Junior Civil Judge Cum Principal
Rent Controller, FAC XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 8th day of August, 2013
E.P. No.2 of 2011
IN
O.S.No.6075 of 1994
Between: M/s Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. S. Mallesham
2. P. Narsimha
3. P. Krishna
4. B. Narsimha Reddy .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Ravikanth, Advocate for decreeholder and Sri M.K. Rathnam for judgment debtor No.2 and judgment debtor No.3 set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Decree holder filed memo stating that the matter is settled out of court and he prayed to terminate the EP.
Hence, in view of the memo, this EP is terminated as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of August, 2013.
For Smt. M.K. Padmavathi, FAC XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2017.
E.P. No.6 of 2016
IN
O.S.No.1506 of 1990
Between: K. Karan Babu Goud, S/o. Late K. Veeraiah Goud, Aged abouat 60 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o.H.No.1-3-183/17/15, Tallabasthi, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. Ch. Yadagiri (died per Lrs)
2. Smt. Chandrakala W/o. Late Ch. Yadagiri, aged about 55 years, Occ: Housewife,
3. Ch. Ganesh S/o. Late Ch. Yadagiri Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business,
4. Ch. Santosh S/o. Late Ch. Yadagiri, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Business, All are R/o.St.NO.8, GHMC No.619, Matrukrupa, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.V. Rajeevan, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
The court bailiff has filed report along with the unexecuted warrant stating that decree holder did not turn up. Decree holder called absent. No representation. It seems decree holder has no interest in the EP. Hence, this EP is dismissed foe default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of December, 2016.
For Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhpathi, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 6th day of December, 2016
E.P. No.7 of 2016
IN
O.S.No.1507 of 1990
Between: K. Karan Babu Goud, S/o. Late K. Veeraiah Goud, Aged abouat 60 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o.H.No.1-3-183/17/15, Tallabasthi, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. Kandukuri Lingam(died per Lrs)
2. Smt. K. Dharani Devi W/o. Late K. Lingam, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Housewife,
3. Bhargav S/o. Late K. Lingam, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Business,
4. K. Gaurav S/o. Late K. Lingam, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Business, All are R/o.1-3-183/39/12/C, F.No.202, Tallabasthi, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.V. Rajeevan, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for decree holder. Issue delivery warrant on payment of process call on 22.12.2016.
Dt.6.12.2016:
The learned counsel for judgment debtor has filed memo through judgment debtor stating that judgment debtor has vacated and handed over vacant and peaceful possession of schedule property to decree holder and handed over key. The decreeholder has endorsed that he received key. The learned counsel for decree holder has endorsed no objection. The memo is recorded.
Possession of schedule property is delivered to decree holder and key handed over. Delivery effected. Hence, EP is terminated.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of December, 2016.
For Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhpathi, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2015
E.P. No.1 of 2015
IN
O.S.No.1622 of 2009
Between:
Vijaya Bank, Basheerbagh branch, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. Mohd Nizamuddin S/o Mohd Quairuddin, Aged 41 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o.39/2, VC Quarters Back side OU Campus, Hyderabad.
2. P. Amitha D/o. P. Krishna, Aged 36 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, Junior Assistant, Department of Applied Geochemistry, O.U., Hyderabad.
3. Dr. B. Rajeswar Reddy S/o. Not known, Aged major, Associate Professor of Department of Applied, O.U., Hyderabad.
.. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri D. Praveen, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Though sufficient time is granted, the decree holder has not filed process to the notice issued to judgment No.2 and steps not taken against judgment debtor No.1. It seems decree holder has no interest in the EP. Hence, EP is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of December, 2015.
For Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhpathi, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2015
E.P. No.4 of 2015
IN
O.S.No.531 of 2010
Between:
Vijaya Bank, Malakpet branch, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. Mrs. P. R. Elizebeth W/o. Sri S.A. Salam, Occ: Head Nurse, Niloufer hospital, Hyderabad.
2. Mrs. Ruth Elizabeth, W/o. John, Occ: Heard Nurse, Niloufer hospital, Hyderabad.
3. Mrs. Ruth Mani W/o. B. Devraj, Occ: Heard Nurse, Niloufer hospital, Hyderabad. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri KVL Narsimha Rao, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Process not paid. No representation. Hence, petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of June, 2015.
For Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhpathi, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 6th day of December, 2016
E.P. No.3 of 2016
IN
O.S.No.1503 of 1990
Between: K. Karan Babu Goud, S/o. Late K. Veeraiah Goud, Aged abouat 60 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o.H.No.1-3-183/17/15, Tallabasthi, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
Mansani Uma Shankar S/o. Mansani Veeraiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Shop No.9-3-315, Sri Sai Baba Trader, Regimental Bazar, Seceunderabad. .. Judgmentholder
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.V. Rajeevan, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for decree holder. Issue delivery warrant on payment of process call on 22.12.2016.
Dt.6.12.2016:
The learned counsel for judgment debtor has filed memo through judgment debtor stating that judgment debtor has vacated and handed over vacant and peaceful possession of schedule property to decree holder and handed over key. The decreeholder has endorsed that he received key. The learned counsel for decree holder has endorsed no objection. The memo is recorded.
Possession of schedule property is delivered to decree holder and keys handed over. Delivery effected. Hence, EP is terminated.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of December, 2016.
For Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhpathi, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2015
E.P. No.7of 2015
IN
O.S.No.537 of 2010
Between:
Vijaya Bank, Malakpet branch, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. Mrs. P. Ruth Mani W/o. Sri B. Deva Raj, Occ: Head Nurse, Niloufer hospital, Hyderabad.
2. Mrs. P.R. Elizabeth, W/o. Askar, Occ: Heard Nurse, Niloufer hospital, Hyderabad.
3. Mrs. Ruth Elizabeth W/o. John, Occ: Heard Nurse, Niloufer hospital, Hyderabad. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri KVL Narsimha Rao, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Process not paid. No representation. Hence, petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of June, 2015.
For Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhpathi, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2016
E.P. No.10 of 2015
IN
O.S.No.2864 of 2001
Between:Suman Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd office at 4-1-828/9, 2nd floor, Pasha Chambers, JN Road, Hyderabad
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. Sridhar S/o. Mallesh, Age: 44 years, H.No.1-9-20/23/H-10, Near Ramalayam, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
2. Mallesh S/o. Venkaiah, Age: 69 years, H.No.1-9-20/23/H-10, Near Ramalayam, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
3. Anand Babu S/o. Yadagiri, Age: 46 years, Jr. Clerk, PF NO.10113162, O/o. SR DPO Hyd., DRM Compound, Bills Credit, Bills(School) Secunderabad.
4. Jalandhar S/o. Narayan Rao, AGE: 65 years, H.NO.10-5-105/A, Thukaram Gate, Lalaguda, Secunderabad. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Dhananjai, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
It is endorsed that first installment received. Hence, EP is closed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of August, 2016.
For Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhpathi, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2016
E.P. No.12 of 2015
IN
O.S.No.962 of 2007
Between: M/s Sri Ram Chits Pvt. Ltd., Repby its GPA holder & Division Manager, G. Raj Kumar S/o. Balaiah, Aged about 33 years, O/O. F.No.203 & 204, Rahamath Complex, Ameerpet X Roads, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. P. Krishna S/o. Chandraiah, Occ: Dhobi, O/o. 8th Battalion, HQ Coy, Kondapur, Hyderabad.
2. P. Mohan Reddy S/o. P.G. Reddy, Occ: Police Constable, EMP. No.489, O/O. 8th Battalion, TSSP Kondapur, R.R. District.
3. D.Esra Naik S/o. Rama Swamy, Occ: Despatch Clerk, Emp NO.256, O/O. 8th Battalion, TSSP Kondapur, R.R. District.
4. P. Venkateswarlu S/o. Thimmaiah, Occ: Cook, Emp No.00990, O/O. 8th Battalion, TSSP Kondapur, R.R. District.
.. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Shiva Shekar, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Process not filed. Decree holder and learned counsel for decree holder called absent. No representation. The decree holder has not paid process to the notice issued to judgment debtors No.2 to 4 U/R. 22 CPC. It seems decree holder has not interest in the EP. Hence, EP is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of August, 2016.
For Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhpathi, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2016
E.P. No.3 of 2015
IN
O.S.No.530 of 2010
Between: M/s Vijaya Bank, Malakpet branch, Hyderabad, rep by its Chief Manager Sri J. Prasada Rao S/o. Sri J. Yarraiah, Aged 48 years, Occ: Officer, R/o. Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. Mr. Syed Zia Ul Haq S/o. Syed Fareed Ul Haq, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Fieldman(Herbariah) Govt. Indian Medicine & Pharmacy, Kattedan, Hyderabad.
2. Mr. S. Vishwabhandhu, S/o. S. Uma Shankar, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Sr. Asst(Herbarian) Govt. Indian Medicine & Pharmacy, Kattedan, Hyderabad. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.L.N. Narsimha Rao, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Decreeholder and learned counsel for Decreeholder called absent. No representation. Process not paid for notice issued to Judgment Debtors No.1 and 2. It seems decree holder has no interest in the matter. Hence, TP is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of March, 2016.
For Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhpathi, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. D. Sarala Kumari, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2004
E.P. No.21 of 2003
IN
O.S.No.4488 of 1999
Between: M/s Shriram Chits(P) Ltd.
.. Decreeholder
A n d P. Guruprasad and three others. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Indrasen, Advocate for decreeholder and of Sri P. Satyanarayanai, Advocate for the judgmentholder No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
No representation. EP is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of September, 2004.
For Sri Smt. D. Sarala Kumari, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
+
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. L. Annapurna Sri, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2007
E.P.S.R. No.111 of 2005
IN
O.S.No.1472 of 2002
Between: Dr. Malati S. Jatkar, Chantable Trust rep. By its Trustee Sri D.D. Jatkar S/o. Late Damodhar Jatkar Aged 73 years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Service, R/o.H.No.1-8-523, Jatkar Bhavan, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d Mr.s Thakur Pradeep Singh S/o. Sri T. Ramchander Singh, Aged 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Terrace Flat No.501, Forming part of Premises No.1-8-526, Jatkar Bhavan, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. .. Judgmentholder
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T. Muralidhar Rao, Advocate for decreeholder and of Sri , Advocate for the judgmentholders and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
No representation on behalf of plaintiff and defendant. Decree passed in O.S.No.1472/2002 is set aside in A.S.No.528/2006 as per the orders communicated to this court, so if pending this petition, no purpose will be served. Hence, EP is terminated.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of September, 2007.
For Smt. L. Annapurna Sri, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. G. Pratibha Devi, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2010
E.P. No.5 of 2002
IN
O.S.No.1739 of 1996
Between: Smt. Sumitra Devi (died per Lrs)
2. Durga Pershad(died)
3. Ajay Agarwal S/o. Late Durga Pershad, Hindu, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.20-3-731, Shah Gunj, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholders
A n d M. Rajesh Metal Industries situated at H.No.20-3-729, Shah Gunj, Hyderabad Rep. By its Proprietor Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal S/o. Tekchand Agarwal, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o.21-6-445, Ghansi Bazaar, Hyderabad. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for decreeholders and of Sri , Advocate for the judgmentholders and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Possession delivered. Delivery recorded. EP terminated.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of April, 2010.
For Smt. G. Prathibha Devi, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. L. Annapurna Sri, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2009
E.P. No.3 of 2008
IN
O.S.No.1443 of 2001
Between: Dr. M.M. Khan S/o. Mohd Khan Aged about 43 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o.H.No.19-3-203/1, Madan Khan Colony, Bibi Ka Chashma, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. Mrs. Wazira Sajeed W/o. Mir Mujahid Hussain, Aged 51 years, Occ: Govt. Servant, R/o.22-7-270/1, Dewan Devdi, Hyderabad.
2. Mir Mujahid Hussain S/o. Mir Gulam Hussain, Age: 64 years, Occ: Retired, R/o.22-7-270/1, Dewan devdi, Hyderabad. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Showkar Ali, Advocate for decreeholder and of Sri , Advocate for the judgmentholders and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
DHR called absent. No representation on behalf of DHR. Despite conditional order dt.16.3.2009 EP is dismissed for default. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2009.
For Sri Smt. L. Annapurna Sri, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. L. Annapurna Sri, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2007
E.P. No.2 of 2007
IN
O.S.No.2387 of 2000
Between: Suman Chit Fund private Limited(having its Regd. Office at 5-4-36/1, 2nd floor, JN Road, Hyderabad and its Branch at Daily Chits Hyderabad, represented by its Director Sri K Raghuveer Guptha S/o. K. Sugaiah, Aged about 51 years, R/o. Plot No.164, Ruri House, Road No.8, Vasavi Colony, R.K.Puram, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. Suresh B S/o. Kishan B, Aged about 45 years, H.No.11-3-512, Parsigutta, Near Ashok Nagar, Secunderabad.
2. Eshwaraiah S/o. Mallesha A, Aged about 55 years, Clerk, Central Bank of India, P.F.NO.048072, Musheerabad branch, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
3. Ramana Murthy Y. S?o. Subramanyam Y.V., Aged about 47 years, R/o.Flat NO.1, Sri Venkateshwara Apartment, NMDC Colony, East Anand Bagh, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.
4. Samson K S/o. Charles K, Aged about 55 years, H.No.1-7-630/69, Hari Nagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Dhananjai, Advocate for decreeholder and of
Sri , Advocate for the judgmentholders and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
The DHRs., counsel filed a memo stating not pressing the EP. Hence, the EP is dismissed as not pressed. The attachment if any is there, it shall be raised.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August, 2007.
For Sri Smt. L. Annapurna Sri, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. L. Annapurna Sri, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008
E.P. No.6 of 2006
IN
O.S.No.932 of 1996
Between: Jafferi Begum (died) per Lrs.,
1. Mohd Afzal
2. Mrs. Azizunnissa Begum.
.. Decreeholders
A n d
1. Shaik Jeelani
2. D. Ayyanna
3. Dannamma
4. D. Ashok
5. D. Suresh
6. Dr. Mir Ghiyasuddin Ali Khan .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar Advocate for decreeholders and of Sri , Advocate for the judgmentholders and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Warrant of Policed protection served. EP terminated.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of June, 2008.
For Sri Smt. L. Annapurna Sri, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. D. Sarala Kumari, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2006
E.P. No.14 of 2005
IN
O.S.No.3182 of 1999
Between: Smt. G. Lakshmi Bai W/o. Narasimha Reddy, Aged abouat 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.NO.2-12-237, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d Smt. T. Hemalatha W/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.NO.1-9-129/23/A, Old M.C.H., No.1-9-129/22, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. .. Judgmentholder
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Narayan Rao, Advocate for decreeholder and of Sri P. Ravi, Advocate for the judgmentholder and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
E.A.NO.s74 and 75/05 are dismissed. The bailiff report is already filed. Possession delivered, hence EP terminated as closed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of April, 2006.
For Sri Smt. D. Sarala Kumari, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. D. Sarala Kumari, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2006
E.P. No.1 of 2004
IN
O.S.No.2552 of 1998
Between: Ram Kashyap Chits Pvt. Ltd., at 1140, Domalguda, Hyderabad by its General Manager JLN Prasad, S/o. J.S. Murthy.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. D. Ashok Kumar S/o. D. Tuljaram, R/o.H.No.7-2-513, Takara Basthi, Secunderabad.
2. Y. Vijaya Rao S/o. Y. Rama Swami, R/o. H.No.6-02-810/1, Tumala Basthi, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
3. S.B.Saibaba S/o. S. Balaiah, R/o. H.No.12-11-13, Upper Basthi, Secunderabad.
4. N. Lakshminarayana S/o. N. Mallaiah, R/o.H.No.12-10-590/104/3, Warisguda, Secunderabad. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.V. Ramprasad, Advocate for decreeholder and of Sri for the judgmentholders and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Publication not filed since long time. Hence, EP is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of September, 2006. For Sri Smt. D. Sarala Kumari, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. D. Sarala Kumari, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl.
Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 7th day of May, 2007
E.P. No.12 of 2004
IN
O.S.No.2440 of 1998
Between: Suman Chit Fund Private Limited Having its Regd. Office at 5-4-36/1, 2nd floor, J.N. Road, Hyderabad and its branch at Rani Gunj, by its Director Sri K. Raghuveer Guptha S/o. K. Sugaiah, aged about 48 years, R/o. Plot No.164, Vasavi Colony, R.K. Puram, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. R. Narasimha Chary S/o. R. Brahmaiah Chary(Late), Aged about 57 years, DY. Director of Marketing,
Principal Training Institute, New Osmangunj,
Hyderabad.
2. Linganna N. S/o. N. Sambaiah(Late), Aged about 56 years, ADM(ASST.Director of Marketing, O/o. The Director of Marketing, R.R. Dist., Osmangunj, Hyderabad.
3. Ramana Rao G. S/o. Tirupataiah, Aged about 49 years, H.No.2-2-1118/4/D/D, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad.
4. Chainulu K.V.J. S/o. Sarma K.A.P, Aged about 52 years, H.No.204, Sravani Apts., Near Bus Depot, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Dhananjai, Advocate for decreeholder and of Sri for the judgmentholders and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Decreeholder counsel reported as not pressed. Hence the EP is dismissed as not preseed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of May,2007. For Sri Smt. D. Sarala Kumari, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Sri G.V. Subrahmanyam, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2006
E.P. No.17 of 2004
IN
O.S.No.4646 of 2000
Between: Khajana Chit Fund & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its MD K. Ramesh Rao S/o. Ram Gopal Rao, Office at 5-4-10, J.N. Road, Abids, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. E. Muralidhar S/o. E. Jangaiah, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, Prop. of Kishore Electricals, 2-2-1130/8/1/A/3, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad R/o.2-2-647/204, flat No.S3 Sri Sai Nilayam, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.
2. T. Ramesh S/o. T. Shankaraiah, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Prop of Balaji Electricals, Shop NO.12-1–409/21, Beedala Basthi, Namalagundu, Near Hanuman Temple, Secunderabad.
3. T. Rama W/o. T. Prakash Rao, Age 28 years, Occ: Business, R/o.2-2-1130/24/1/4, Besides Indian Bank, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.
4. E. Yadamma W/o. E. Muralidhar, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o.2-2-647/204, Plot No.S3, Sri Sai Nilayam, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Buchi Babu, Advocate for decreeholder and of Sri for the judgmentholders and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Decreeholder not present. No representation. Hence EP is dismissed for default. Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of September, 2006.
For Sri Sri G.V. Subrahmanyam, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. D. Sarala Kumari, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2006
E.P. No.26 of 2004
IN
O.S.No.1923 of 2000
Between: M/s Model Chit Corp Limited, Regd. Office Iind Floor, Model House, Punjagutta, Hyderabad Branch at Mehdipatnam, Rep. By Mr. K. Jayapal, Assistant Manager, R/o. Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. V. Pandu Ranga Vittal S/o. Nageswaram, Aged about 58 years, R/o. Hyderabad.
2. N. Prabhakar Rao S/o. N. Rama Koteswara Rao, Aged about 43 years, Assistant at Training Centre, EMP NO.55079, National Insurance Comopany Ltd., M.J. Road, Hyderabad.
3. Ch.V. Nagalaxmi W/o. Ch.L.N.V. Prasad, aged about 38 years, Assistant EMP NO.558067, Accounts Department LIC of India, City Branch VIII, Secunderabad.
4. V. Radha Krishna Murthy S/o. Nageswaram, Aged about 56 years, EMP NO.2890, Assistant Accounts Officer, AP Dairy Development Coop., FEDN Ltd., Hayathnagar, Hyderabad. .. Judgmentholders
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.P. Saradhi, Advocate for decreeholder and of Sri for the judgmentholders and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner not present since long back. It shows that petitioner has no interest. Hence, this EP is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of September, 2006.
For Sri Smt. D. Sarala Kumari, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri G. Susheel Kumar Patrudu, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 15th day of July, 1998
O.S.No.1424 of 1993
Between: Smt. Shah Jahan Begum W/o. Mohd Jahangir, Aged 37 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.10-5-391/54/10/K, Syednagar, Hyderabad through her GPA Agent Sri S.A. Allam, S/o. Late S.A. Qayyum, Aged 50 years, Business, R/o.4-1-289, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiff
A n d
The District Collector, Hyderabad(District) Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.
.. Defendant
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Habeebuddin, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Assistant Government Plead for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Plaintiff called absent. There is no representation till 4 p.m. The matter is adjourned as last chance. Hence, the suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of July, 1998.
For Sri G. Susheel Kumar Patrudu, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C. Venkatesh, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24th day of March, 1998
O.S.No.2155 of 1993
Between:
1. M/s Ivy Leage Schools Limited, 8-2-703/4/1, Road NO.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
2. Sri Mahavir Golechn, Managing Director, M/s Ivy League School Limited, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiffs
A n d
Sri Vasudev Pillari S/o. Raja Venugopal Pillai, Aged 62 years, R/o. 8-2-406, Road No.6, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Defendant
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri E Madan Mohan Rao Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri P. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Plaintiffs called absent. No representation. There is no representation for plaintiff since 12.12.1997 onwards. Hence, the suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of March, 1998.
For Sri C. Venaktesh, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C. Venkatesh,
XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24th day of June, 1998
O.S.No.2099 of 1993
Between: Mohammed Shoukat Ali, S/o. Late Mohammed Bequar Ali, Aged about 22 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.C.I.B.192, ‘C’ Class Munipal No.16-7-56, A-zampura, Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiff
A n d
1. Moahmmed Siddique S/o. Mohammed Roushan, Aged about 55 years, Occ: landlord, R/o.H.No.5-4-664, Kattalmandi, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.
2. Pratab Reddy S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Aged about 50 years, Proprietor Saptagiri Hotel, 5-4-651, Kattal Mandi, Hyderabad.
.. Defendants
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Balequddin, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri M.M. Firdoos, Advocate for the defendant No.1 and of defendant No.2 remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Both parties called absent. There is no representation till 4.30 p.m. Hence, the suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of June, 1998.
For Sri C. Venaktesh, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII JUNIOR CIVIL COURT CUM I ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri B. David Raju, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 26th day of June, 1998
O.S.No.2156 of 1993
Between:
Mrs. Syeda Mallika W/o. Syed Shah Jehan, Aged 38 years, Occ: Household, R/o.4-1-1233, Bogulkunta, Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiff
A n d
1. Raghunandan Tiwari, S/o. Ramprasad Tiwari, Aged 52 years,
2. Mahaveer Prasad Tiwari, S/o. Ramprasad Tiwari, Aged 43 years,
3. Rakesh Tiwari S/o. Shivprasad Tiwari, Aged 27 years,
.. Defendants
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.K. Ahmed, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri P. Rajendra Reddy, Advocate for the defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Both called absent. The matter is posted as last chance. Hence, the suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of June, 1998.
For Sri B. David Raju, XIII Junior Civil Judge Cum
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Lakshmi Kameshwari, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 1998
O.S.No.1990 of 1993
Between:
Hassan Bin Abdullah Baqriesa alias Saleem S/o. Late Abdullah Baqresa, Aged 28 years, Occ: Business, R/o.18-11-67/16/A, Barkas, Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiff
A n d
1. Commissioner of Police, Twin cities, Hyderabad, Office at Purani Haveli, Hyderabad.
2. Circle Inspector of Police, P.S. Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad.
3. Inspector of Police Women’s Protection Cell, at CCS Building, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.
.. Defendants
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Md. Zaheeruddin, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Mohd Ishaq Ali Khan for defendant No.2 and of Assistant Government Pleader for defendants No.1 and 3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. There wss no representation on 19.3.1998. Hence, suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of April, 1998.
For Smt. Lakshmi Kameshwari,
IADDL.RENT
CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Lakshmi Kameshwari, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 1st day of April, 1998
O.S.No.2177 of 1993
Between:
R. Bhoomi Reddy S/o. Ram Reddy, Hindu, Aged 48 years, cc: Faculty Member of Law (Legal Adviser), Police Academy, R/o.H.No.25/B, PS Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiff
A n d
P. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. Raghupathi Reddy, Aged 37 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.H.NO.26/B, PS Nagar, Lower Masab Tank, Hyderabad.
.. Defendant
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri N. Krishna, Advocate for the defdendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. There is no representation on 2.1.1998, 23.1.1998, 12.2.1998, 11.3.1998. There is no representation till 4.30 pm. Hence, suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of April, 1998.
For Smt. Lakshmi Kameshwari,
IADDL.RENT
CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 4th day of May, 2015
R.C.No.212 of 2013
Between:
Syed Munnawar S/o. Late Syed Kareem Aged about 54 years, Bank Employee, R/o.13-6-437/7/A/2, Khader Bhagh, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Shabana Begum D/o. Syed Mohd Siddique, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Household, R/o.10-2-522, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri N. Anil Kumar Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M.A. Basha, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
PW.1 called absent. No representation. Costs not paid. The case is coming for the continuation of chief examination of PW.1 and kept aside till 1.00 p.m.
The matter is again called at 1.00 p.m. Petitioner called absent. No representation.
It seems petitioner has no interest in this case. Hence, the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of May, 2015.
For Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi,
IADDL.RENT
CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2020
I.A. No.188 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.27 of 2018
Between:
Naveen Kumar S/o. Mool Shankar, Age about 32 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.H.No.15-6-267/1, Begumbazar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
M/s L. Chimanlal, Rep by its partner Sri Gautam Chand, S/o. Late Kishore Chand Jain, Age: 65 years, occ: Business, D.No.15-9-469/3, Mahboobgunj, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Harihara Kumar Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Altaf Mehadi, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the documents i.e., certified copy of sale deed dt.6.4.2006, original market value certificate dt.28.9.2018, certified copy or registered rental agreement vide document No.560/2015 dt.2.3.2015 and certified copy of registered rental agreement vide document No.561/2015 dt.2.3.2015 stating that at the time of filing of the main case, he filed xerox copies of the above said documents and now he is filing the original and certified copies of the said documents, as such it is just and necessary to receive the above said documents. Hence, this petition.
On the other hand, the respondent opposed the same.
Heard arguments of both the learned counsels.
Perused the petition. The petitioner herein filed the RC against the respondents herein for fixation of fair rent and the same is coming for the evidence of petitioner and at this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petition to receive the above said documents and the respondent opposed the same.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that: Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
Mere receiving of documents will not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of documents at the time of cross examine the witness.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent have an opportunity to cross examine the witness. Further the documents filed by the petitioner are original and certified copies.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the above said documents are ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of February, 2020.
IADDL.RENT
CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2020
E.A.No.35 of 2019
IN
E.A.No.22 of 2022
IN
E.P. No.7 of 2011
IN
R.C.No.423 of 2007
Between:
1. Mahender Kumar S/o. Late Jagadish Pershad, Aged 48 years, Occ: Business,
2. Pavan Kumar S/o. Late Jagadish Pershad, Aged 46 years, Occ: Business,
Both are R/o.21-2-185, Charkaman, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners/Respondents
A n d
1. Mohd Samdad Shairief S/o Aged 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.22-6-178 & 22-6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad.
2. B.L. Agarwal S/o. Late Goverdhandas, Aged about 75 years, Occ: Business, R/o.22-6-178 and 193/4, Pathargatti, Charkaman, Hyderabad.
(R2 is not necessary party to this I.A)
.. Respondents/Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri M.S. Reddy, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the documents i.e., certified copy of petition in R.C.NO.65/2013 and certified copy of petition in I.A.NO.52/2013 in RC.No.65/2013 stating that they have recently obtained the above said certified copies and there is no dispute of filing of false RC.No.65/2013 by the respondent No.1 claiming alleged tenancy rights and the said documents are crucial and necessary for disposal of claim petition, as the documents are obtained recently hence, there is no delay or intentional delay in filing the above said documents and if the said documents are not received, the petitioners will suffer great hardship and irreparable loss and no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. Hence, this petition.
The respondent No.1 filed counter, denying the petition averments stating that the present petition is not maintainable either under law or under facts as the petitioners are not given any reasons and introducing the present document at this belated stage and the present petition filed by the petitioners only to drag the matter. The respondent No.1 further submitted that from the beginning itself he is claiming tenancy rights over the petition schedule property, but the petitioners are showing the respondent No.2 as their tenant only to evict him illegally from the petition schedule property and further submitted that the second respondent is fictitious person and he never entered his appearance before the court claiming any right over the petition schedule property and he filed the claim petition before this court vide E.A.NO.22/2011 seeking to declare him as a tenant in the petition schedule property. The respondent No.1 further submitted that the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad has already allowed I.A.No.52/2013 in RC.NO.65/2011 and directed him to deposit the future rents having come to the conclusion that he is lawful tenant of the petition schedule property. The respondent No.1 further submitted that the above claim petition is filed for arguments and the present petition cannot be allowed for the reasons at this stage, hence prays this court to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
Heard.
Perused the petition. The present petition is filed by the petitioners to receive the above said documents and the respondent opposed the same. Further the documents filed by the petitioners are certified copies.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents arenot relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that:
Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
Mere receiving of documents will not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of documents at the time of cross examine the witness.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the above said documents are ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of January, 2020.
IADDL.RENT
CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER : CITY
SMALL CAUSES COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: Smt.Ch.Ashalatha,
Principal Rent Controller,
City Small Causes Court, Sec-bad. FAC Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2019
I.A.No.146 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.149 of 2015
Between:
1. Nagari Balram S/o. Sri Nagari Radhakrishna, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.5-8-47, Fateh Sultan Lane, Nampally, Hyderabad.
2. Nagari Sandeep S/o. Sri Nagari Radhakrishna, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.5-8-47, Fateh Sultan Lane, Nampally, Hyderabad.
..Petitioners/petitioners
A n d
1. Shri Arsid Ravinder S/o. Late Arsid Ramchander, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business in shop No.8, Second floor, in Nagari Market, M.No.15-6-351, situated at Nagari Market, Begum Bazaar, Hyderabad and H.No.14-1-424, Aghapura, Hyderabad.
2. Shri Arsid Rahul S/o. Arsid Ravinder, Hindu, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Business in shop No.8, in Nagari Market, M.No.15-6-351, situated at Nagari Market, Bgum Bazar, Hyderabad.
…. Respondents/Respondents
This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Shakeela, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri M. Papa Reddy, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules to receive the documents i.e., certified copy of lease deed dt.13.6.2013, original market value certificate and sketch plan of the schedule premises stating that the petitioners filed the RC petition for fixation of fair rent and recently they obtained the certified copy of lease deed and market value certificate and at the time of filing of RC, he filed copy of plan annexed to gift deed, but due to oversight he could not file sketch plan and no prejudice will be caused to the other side in case if the petition is allowed and the delay caused in filing the documents are neither intentional nor wanton. Hence, this petition.
2.The respondents filed counsel denying the petition averments stating that the petitioners have earlier got marked two gift settlement deeds and certified copy of market value certificate as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The respondent denied that the petitioners obtained certified copies of docu- ments recently and neither the petitioners are parties to the said docu- ments nor signatories to the same, as such they cannot be looked into, hence sought for dismissal of the petition.
3.Heard.
4.The petitioners herein filed the main RC petition against the respondent for fixation of fair rent. The petitioners herein filed the present petition to receive the above said documents and the respondents opposed the same.
5.Perused the petition, counter and the documents sought to be received.
6.On considering the rival contentions of both the learned coun- sels, since the documents sought to be received are original and certified copies of documents, hence satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the petitioners for not filing of the documents earlier. There are no tenable objection in the counter filed by the respondents.
7.The objections, if any in marking the documents cannot be seen at this stage in this application, the same will be considered when the documents are tendered into evidence as the learned counsel for the re- spondent is having opportunity to raise his objection while the documents are admitted into evidence and to cross examine the witness through whom the documents are tendered into evidence.
8.Hence, this petition is allowed. However, documents are or- dered to be received subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of October, 2019.
FAC PRL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER : CITY
SMALL CAUSES COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: Smt.Ch.Ashalatha,
Principal Rent Controller,
City Small Causes Court, Sec-bad. FAC Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2019
I.A.No.147 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.150 of 2015
Between:
1. Nagari Balram S/o. Sri Nagari Radhakrishna,
Aged about 25 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.5-8-47, Fateh Sultan Lane, Nampally, Hyderabad.
2. Nagari Sandeep S/o. Sri Nagari Radhakrishna, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.5-8-47, Fateh Sultan Lane, Nampally, Hyderabad.
..Petitioners/petitioners
A n d
Shri Arsid Manoj S/o. Late Arsid Ramchander, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Business in shop No.8, Second floor, in Nagari Market, M.No.15-6-351, situated at Nagari Market, Begum Bazaar, Hyderabad and H.No.14-1-424, Aghapura, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Shakeela, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri M. Papa Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules to receive the documents i.e., certified copy of lease deed dt.13.6.2013, original market value certificate and sketch plan of the schedule premises stating that the petitioners filed the RC petition for fixation of fair rent and recently they obtained the certi- fied copy of lease deed and market value certificate and at the time of filing of RC, he filed copy of plan annexed to gift deed, but due to oversight he could not file sketch plan and no prejudice will be caused to the other side in case if the petition is allowed and the delay caused in filing the docu- ments are neither intentional nor wanton. Hence, this petition.
2.The respondent filed counsel denying the petition averments stating that the petitioners have earlier got marked two gift settlement deeds and certified copy of market value certificate as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The respondent denied that the petitioners obtained certified copies of docu- ments recently and neither the petitioners are parties to the said docu- ments nor signatories to the same, as such they cannot be looked into, hence sought for dismissal of the petition.
3.Heard.
4.The petitioners herein filed the main RC petition against the respondent for fixation of fair rent. The petitioners herein filed the present petition to receive the above said documents and the respondent opposed the same.
5.Perused the petition, counter and the documents sought to be received.
6.On considering the rival contentions of both the learned coun- sels, since the documents sought to be received are original and certified copies of documents, hence satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the petitioners for not filing of the documents earlier. There are no tenable objection in the counter filed by the respondents.
7.The objections, if any in marking the documents cannot be seen at this stage in this application, the same will be considered when the documents are tendered into evidence as the learned counsel for the re- spondent is having opportunity to raise his objection while the documents are admitted into evidence and to cross examine the witness through whom the documents are tendered into evidence.
8.Hence, this petition is allowed. However, documents are or- dered to be received subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of October, 2019.
FAC PRL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER : CITY
SMALL CAUSES COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: Smt.Ch.Ashalatha,
Principal Rent Controller,
City Small Causes Court, Sec-bad. FAC Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Friday, this the 26th day of JULY, 2019.
I.A.No.116 of 2018
IN
R.C.No.221 of 2018
Between: Anees Fatima W/o. Late Mohammed Shuauddin, Aged 71 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.20-5-116, Shahalibanda, Hyderabad.
..Petitioner
A n d
Mohammed Masood Ur Rahman S/o. Mohammed Waheed Ur Rahman, Aged 46 years, Occ: Commission Agent, Tenant in Mulgi No.2040189/A, New Road Shahalibanda, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri Farrok Salahuddin, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Syed Zainul Abedin Viqar Ahmed, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
DOCKET ORDER
1.This petition is filed by the petitioner/petitioner under Section 11(1) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, to direct the respondent/respondent to pay the arrears of rent from September 2017 to October 2018 for 14 months amounting to Rs.47600/- @ Rs.3400/- per month, and continue to pay the same pending the main RC.
2. It is stated in the petition affidavit that the petitioner is the owner and the respondent is the tenant in the petition schedule petition. The monthly rent is Rs.3,400/- and that the respondent is irregular in payment of monthly rents and failed to pay the rents and that they are liable to pay rents for 14 months from September 2017 to October 2018 amounting to Rs.47,600/-. Hence, this petition.
3. The respondent/respondent filed counter by opposing the petition. It is stated that the sons of the petitioner namely Mohd Iqbal and Mohd Hameed used to collect the rents from the respondent on behalf of the petitioner and there is no habit of passing rent receipts from the date of inception of tenancy. Originally the respondent obtained the petition schedule mulgi on rent by executing lease deed dt.1.8.2002 on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- per month for a period of 11 months and he deposited a sum of Rs.25000/- towards advance deposit and after expiry of 11 months, the tenancy became oral and the rent has been enhanced from time to time and at present the monthly rent is Rs.3400/- exclusive of electricity charges. The respondent is regular in payment of monthly rents and paid the rent to the petitioner till the month of September 2018 and the petitioner and her sons demanded to enhance the rent from Rs.3400/- to Rs.7000/- per month, for which the respondent did not agree, as such they tried to dispossess him from the petition schedule premises and they also refused to receive the rents from the month of October 2018, as such he sent the rent for the month of October 2018 through money order, but the petitioner refused to receive the same. Further the respondent again remitted the rent for the month of October 2018 and November 2018 through money order and the same was also refused by the petitioner. The respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioner calling upon her to specify the name of the bank and account number and even on receipt of the said notice, the petitioner failed to give any reply and the respondent again remitted the rents for the month of October 2018 to December 2018 amounting to Rs.10,200/- @ Rs.3400/- per month, but the said money order was refused by the petitioner. The respondent never committed any willful default in payment of rents from September 2017 to October 2018 and that no landlord can kept quite without demanding the rents of 14 months and prays the court to dismiss the petition with costs.
4.Heard both the learned counsel.
5.During the course of oral arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner/petitioner filed a memo stating that “the petitioner is a senior citizen and a pardanasheen lady, as such instead of depositing the rents into the account of the RC, to direct the respondent to deposit the arrears of rents and monthly rents in her bank account No.30312010167271, Syndicate Bank, Shalibanda branch”. For which the learned counsel for the respondent stated that, the respondent paid rents till September, 2018, and he has no objection if admitted arrears of rents are ordered.
6.Considering the contents of the petition affidavit, counter and submissions of both the learned counsel, as there is no dispute with regard to the jural relationship and quantum of rent, this court proceeded further. The contention with regard to the alleged willful default and the alleged default period will be decided at the time of regular enquiry in the main RC basing on the evidence placed by both the parties.
7.Therefore, the admitted rent, can be permitted to be deposited by the respondent without causing any prejudice to both parties. Memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner by mentioning bank account number of the petitioner with Syndicate Bank vide SR.No.911/2019, dated 25.6.2019, and the same is recorded. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
8.In the result, the petition is partly allowed without causing prejudice to both the parties. The respondent is directed to deposit the arrears of rent @ Rs.3400/- per month from October 2018, till date within TWO MONTHS from the date of this order in the bank account of the petitioner bearing Account No.30312010167271, with Syndicate Bank, Shalibanda branch, IFSC Code]
SYNB0003031. The respondent is further directed to deposit the future monthly rent @ Rs.3400/- on or before 10th of every succeeding month till the disposal of the main RC to the said bank account of the petitioner. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of July, 2019.
FAC PRL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2019.
I.A.No.141 of 2018
IN
R.C.No.157 of 2017
Between:
1. Payala Mohan S/o. Late P. Harinath, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Barber,
2. Payala Venu S/o. Late P. Harinath, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Barber, Business at shop No.4-2-427, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.
..Petitioners/Respondents.
A n d
1.Surya Sen Jayaswal S/o. Late Hazarilal, Aged about 86 years, Occ: Retired R/o. Flat NO.301, Venkata Anasuya Apartments, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.
2. Chetan Anand Jayaswal S/o. Surya Sen Jayaswal, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.301, Venkata Anasuya Apartments, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. …. Respondents/Petitioners.
This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri Haroon Osman, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri R. Umender Kumar, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioners counsel is called absent, no representation. Waited till 5 p.m. Costs of Rs.200/- not paid and conditional order not complied. Hence, this petition shall stand dismissed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of June, 2019.
FAC PRL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl. Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2019.
I.A.No.19 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.223 of 2014
Between: Osmangunj Extension Cooperative Housing Society Limited represented by its Secretary, Sri Goverdhan Das Tapadia S/o. GEsulal Tapadia, Aged about 64 years, Occ: Business, Secretary to the Osmangunj Extension Cooperative Housing Society Limited, New Osmangunj, Hyderabad.
..Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
1.Smt. Leelavathi Devi Kalantri (died) per Lrs.
2.Ramesh Chand Kalantri S/o. Late Sri Dhanraj Kalantri, Aged 60 years, Occ: Business, Residing at H.NO.5-8-294, Chirag Ali Lane, Maheshnagar, Hyderabad.
3.Suresh Chand Kalantri S/o. Late Sri Dhanraj Kalantri, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, Residing at H.No.5-8-294, Chirag Ali Lane, Maheshnagar, Hyderabad.
4.Mahesh Chand Kalantri S/o. Late Sri Dhanraj Kalantri, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Business, residing at H.No.5-8-294, Chirag Ali Lane, Maheshnagar, Hyderabad.
5.Smt. Premalatha Bhattad, W/o. Narayandas Bhattad, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Housewife, residing at H.No.5-8-294, Chirag Ali Lane, Maheshnagar, Hyderabad.
…. Respondents/Respondents
This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Shyam Sunder Lahoti, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the secretary of the petitioner under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the documents by condoning the delay if any stating that that the petitioner filed eviction petition against the respondents claiming default in payment of rent from 1.4.2014 for 65 months @ Rs.847/- per month totaling to Rs.55,902/- and also municipal property taxes and the records were not traceable in the office, as such they could not mention about the earlier proceedings initiated by Smt. Leelavathi Kalantri and the record pertaining to suit bearing O.S.NO.415 of 1981 was not traceable with the society and subsequently the society could lay hands over the old copies of the documents and obtained certified copies of plaint, written statement and compromise filed in the said suit and the papers were mixed up in other files and as such could not be filed earlier. The petitioner further submitted that the counter foils of the rent receipts from the receipt book NO.98 bearing receipt NO.9738 dt.5.11.1998, receipt book No.100 bearing receipt No.9929 dt.29.4.1999, receipt book NO.124 bearing receipt No.12306 dt.11.4.2005 and the said receipt books were mixed up in other files, as such the same could not be filed. Hence, this petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that petitioner has misrepresented the facts by falsely mentioning the nature of documents and the documents have no bearing in the present case and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard the arguments of both sides and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 got marked.
Perused the petition. The petitioner herein filed the RC against the respondents herein for eviction and the same is coming for petitioner evidence and at this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petition to receive the above said documents and the respondents opposed the same.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that: Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
Mere receiving of documents will not cause any prejudice to the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of documents at the time of cross examine the witness.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents have an opportunity to cross examine the witness. Further the documents filed by the petitioner is certified copies.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the above said documents are ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of June, 2019.
FAC II ADDL. RENT
CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of May, 2019
E.A.No.27 of 2017
IN
E.P.No.5 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.138 of 2010
Between:-
1. Y. Neelakanta Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Legal Practitioner, R/o.H.NO.1-5-505, Bakaram, Hyderabad.
2. Y. Hanumanth Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.1-7-1045, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
3. Y. Malla Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Retd Government Servant, R/o.1-7-1045, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
4. Y. Pratap Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Retd Employee, R/o.1-7-1045, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
….Petitioners/Respondents/Dhrs. AND
M. George S/o. Late M. Krupaiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o.H.No.1-7-1042/A, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. …. Respondent/JDR
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Rajendra Prasad Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri D. Mallaiah, Advocate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner counsel is present and filed memo stating that cost of Rs.200/- paid.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of May, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Pres ent: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of May, 2019
E.A.No.26 of 2017
IN
E.P.No.4 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.137 of 2010
Between:-
1. Y. Neelakanta Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Legal Practitioner, R/o.H.NO.1-5-505, Bakaram, Hyderabad.
2. Y. Hanumanth Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.1-7-1045, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
3. Y. Malla Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Retd Government Servant, R/o.1-7-1045, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
4. Y. Pratap Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Retd Employee, R/o.1-7-1045, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
….Petitioners/Respondents/Dhrs. AND
M. EmanielS/o. Late M. Krupaiah, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o.H.No.1-7-1042/A, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. …. Respondent/JDR
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Rajendra Prasad Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri D. Mallaiah, Advocate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner counsel is present and filed memo stating that cost of Rs.200/- paid.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of May, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24th day of April, 2019
I.A.No.80 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.189 of 2014
Between:
Sri Ram Prakash Agarwal S/o. Late Sri Motilal Agarwal, Aged 63 years, unemployed and residing at 6-2-1010/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
1. M/s Omega Café & Provision Stores(A Partnership firm) 6-2-1010/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500 004 TS
Rep. by its Partner Sri Hussain Zabeth S/o. Hassan Hussain Zabeth
2. Sri Mohd Qadeer S/o. not known to the petitioner, Prop: M/s Omega Pan Shop R/o.6-3-1241/1, MS Maqta, Opp: Raj Bhawan, Hyderabad
Also at 6-2-1010/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500 004 TS
3. Md. Shakeel S/o. Gulam Farooq, Aged 54 years, C/o.6-2-1010/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500 004 TS
.. Respondents/Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R. Brij Raj Singh, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Shyam Sunder Lahoti, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petition under section 151 CPC praying the court to reopen the evidence of petitioner for limited purpose of marking the documents stating that he filed recall petition for marking of documents through petitioner, but due to inadvertence he has not filed reopen petition, as such he is filing the same. Hence, this petition.
The respondent reported no counter.
Heard arguments of both sides.
Perused the petition. The petitioner herein filed the main RC against the respondents herein for fixation of fair rent and the same is coming for respondents’ evidence. At this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petition to reopen the petitioner side evidence for the purpose of marking the documents through PW.1 and the respondents reported no counter.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April, 2019.
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24th day of April, 2019
I.A.No.47 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.189 of 2014
Between:
Sri Ram Prakash Agarwal S/o. Late Sri Motilal Agarwal, Aged 63 years, unemployed and residing at 6-2-1010/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
1. M/s Omega Café & Provision Stores(A Partnership firm) 6-2-1010/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500 004 TS Rep. by its Partner Sri Hussain Zabeth S/o. Hassan Hussain Zabeth
2. Sri Mohd Qadeer S/o. not known to the petitioner, Prop: M/s Omega Pan Shop R/o.6-3-1241/1, MS Maqta, Opp: Raj Bhawan, Hyderabad
Also at 6-2-1010/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500 004 TS
3. Md. Shakeel S/o. Gulam Farooq, Aged 54 years, C/o.6-2-1010/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500 004 TS
.. Respondents/Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R. Brij Raj Singh, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Shyam Sunder Lahoti, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner, who is he petitioner in the main RC under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the documents i.e., original building permission plan under permit No.5/17 of 1966 in File NO.1010/1, 10/F/63 with its HMC receipt No.27 dt.7.5.1966 dt. 7.5.1966 stating that the original of the building permission plan was not in his custody and possession, but was got trace out in the papers of his elder brother Sri Ramlal Agarwal and the delay in filing the same is neither willful not deliberate. Hence, this petition. The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the alleged plan is not at all relevant since the same is of prior to such road widening and it does not show the existing petition schedule property let out to the first respondent and the petitioner cannot be permitted to file irrelevant documents at belated stage and when the same are not at all showing the clear demarcation of the existing structure and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard both sides.
Perused the petition. The petitioner herein filed the main RC against the respondents herein for fixation of fair rent and the same is coming for respondents’ evidence. At this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petition to receive the above said documents and the respondents opposed the same.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”. In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that: Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”. Mere receiving of documents will not cause any prejudice to the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of document at the time of cross examine the witness.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the above said documents are ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April, 2019.
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24th day of April, 2019
I.A.No.46 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.189 of 2014
Between:
Sri Ram Prakash Agarwal S/o. Late Sri Motilal Agarwal, Aged 63 years, unemployed and residing at 6-2-1010/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
1. M/s Omega Café & Provision Stores(A Partnership firm) 6-2-1010/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500 004 TS Rep. by its Partner Sri Hussain Zabeth S/o. Hassan Hussain Zabeth
2. Sri Mohd Qadeer S/o. not known to the petitioner, Prop: M/s Omega Pan Shop R/o.6-3-1241/1, MS Maqta, Opp: Raj Bhawan, Hyderabad
Also at 6-2-1010/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500 004 TS
3. Md. Shakeel S/o. Gulam Farooq, Aged 54 years, C/o.6-2-1010/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500 004 TS
.. Respondents/Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R. Brij Raj Singh, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Shyam Sunder Lahoti, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner, who is he petitioner in the main RC under Order XVIII Rule 17 and section 151 CPC praying the court to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking the documents i.e., original building permission plan under permit No.5/17 of 1966 in File NO.1010/1, 10/F/63 with its HMC receipt No.27 dt.7.5.1966 dt. 7.5.1966 stating that the original of the building permission plan was not in his custody and possession, but was got trace out in the papers of his elder brother Sri Ramlal Agarwal and the delay in filing the same is neither willful not deliberate. Hence, this petition. The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the alleged plan is not at all relevant since the same is of prior to such road widening and it does not show the existing petition schedule property let out to the first respondent and the petitioner cannot be permitted to file irrelevant documents at belated stage and when the same are not at all showing the clear demarcation of the existing structure and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard both sides.
Perused the petition. The petitioner herein filed the main RC against the respondents herein for fixation of fair rent and the same is coming for respondents’ evidence. At this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petition to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking the above said documents and the respondents opposed the same.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April, 2019.
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24th day of April, 2019
E.A.No. of 2019
IN
EP No.8 of 2008
IN
R.C.No.278 of 2008
Between:
Sri Vani Guppa Satish Kumar S/o. V.G. Raghu Ram, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.401, No.240,250, Jawahar Nagar, Moula Ali, Malakajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State ….Claim Petitioner /Third party AND
1. Smt.Devarakonda Vijaya Venkata Gnannasurya Kumari, W/o. Balalmurali Subramanyam, aged about 46 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.3-78,
Hanuman Nagar, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent /Decreeholder
2. M. Siva Sankar Goud (died per L.Rs)
3. Smt. Suvarna Goud W/o. Late M. Shiva Shankar Goud, Aged about 80 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-5-928, Sushillwadi, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.
4. Sri Vishnu Goud S/o. Late M. Shiva Shankar Goud, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-5-928, Sushilwadi, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.
5. Smt. Vani W/o. Late M. Ravi Goud, Aged about 39 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.3-5-928, Sushilwadi, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.
6. Mr. M. Rajanikath S/o. Late M. Ravi Goud, Aged about 20 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.3-5-928, Sushilwadi, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.
7. Miss Sashikala D/o. Late M. Ravi Goud, Aged about 12 years, Occ: Student, (Being a minor represented by her mother Smt. Vani) R/o. H.No.3-5-928, Sushilwadi, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.
8. M. Harish Goud S/o. Late Shiva Shankar Goud, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-5-928, Sushilwadi, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.
9. M. Chandra Mohan Goud S/o. Late Shiva Sankar Goud, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-5-928, Sushilwadi, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.
….Respondents/Judgment Debtors
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. K. Jaya Sree, Advocate for Claim petitioner and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
Perused the petition and documents filed along with the petition.
After perusal, this court is of the opinion that the claim petitioner is not having prima-facie evidence to prove his case. The claim petitioner herein is claiming his right over the petition schedule property under mutual understanding agreement dt.2.1.2017. The documents filed by the claim petitioner does not prove that the claim petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule property or in possession of the petition schedule property, as such this claim petition is not maintainable. Hence, rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April, 2019.
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2019
E.A.No.26 of 2017
IN
E.P.No.4 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.137 of 2010
Between:-
1. Y. Neelakanta Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Legal Practitioner, R/o.H.NO.1-5-505, Bakaram, Hyderabad.
2. Y. Hanumanth Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.1-7-1045, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
3. Y. Malla Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Retd Government Servant, R/o.1-7-1045, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
4. Y. Pratap Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Retd Employee, R/o.1-7-1045, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
….Petitioners/Respondents/Dhrs. AND
M. EmanielS/o. Late M. Krupaiah, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o.H.No.1-7-1042/A, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. …. Respondent/JDR
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Rajendra Prasad Advcoate for the petitioners and of Sri D. Mallaiah, Advcoate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioners under section 5 of Limitation Act praying the court to condone the delay of 15 days in filing the petition to set aside the order dt.31.1.2017 stating that the preferred execution petition and the court directed the court bailiff to hand over the physical possession of the schedule premises to them, being the decree holders and the court in execution petition ordered notice to judgment debtor and the son of judgment debtor preferred a claim petition claiming independent title over the petition schedule property through judgment debtor and after due contest the court dismissed the said claim petition. The petitioners further submitted that the matter was coming for hearing for the purpose of execution of warrant on 14.12.2017 and at their instance the court posted the matter to 20.1.2017 and their counsel while updating the next date in his court dairy, has updated the next date of hearing as 20.2.2017 instead of 20.1.2017 and the court posted the matter from 20.1.2017 to 31.1.2017 and as there was no representation, the EP was dismissed for default and immediately after coming to know about the dismissal of EP on 20.2.2017, they instructed their counsel to take steps to restore the EP to its original number and non representation on 31.1.2017 was neither willful nor wanton and if the EP is not restored to its original position, they will be put to irreparable loss and hardship which cannot be compensated. Hence, this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that respondent before preferred an appeal before the Honourable High Court and the same is pending and the petitioners intentionally suppressed the real facts in order to mislead the court. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a practicing advocate and he has know the court proceedings, but he has intentionally not come forward to appear before the court though the court gave several opportunities to the petitioners and the petitioners have not choose to explain the day to day delay in filing the petition and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The petitioners herein filed the EP against the respondent herein and the same was dismissed for default on 31.1.2017 and as such the petitioners herein filed the present petition to set aside the order dt.31.1.2017 and the respondent opposed the same.
On considering the contents of the petition affidavit, this court satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the petitioners in the petition. Further this court being the trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the matter on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties.
In view of the above reasons stated above, this court inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give an opportunity to the petitioner herein. No loss or injury would be caused to the respondent if the petition is allowed.
In the result, the petition is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.200/- to respondent on or before 10.5.2019. Or else the petition shall stand dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of May, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2019
E.A.No.27 of 2017
IN
E.P.No.5 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.138 of 2010
Between:-
1. Y. Neelakanta Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Legal Practitioner, R/o.H.NO.1-5-505, Bakaram, Hyderabad.
2. Y. Hanumanth Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.1-7-1045, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
3. Y. Malla Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Retd Government Servant, R/o.1-7-1045, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
4. Y. Pratap Reddy S/o. Late Y. Ganna Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Retd Employee, R/o.1-7-1045, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.
….Petitioners/Respondents/Dhrs. AND
M. George S/o. Late M. Krupaiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o.H.No.1-7-1042/A, Azamabad, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. …. Respondent/JDR
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Rajendra Prasad Advcoate for the petitioners and of Sri D. Mallaiah, Advcoate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioners under section 5 of Limitation Act praying the court to condone the delay of 15 days in filing the petition to set aside the order dt.31.1.2017 stating that the preferred execution petition and the court directed the court bailiff to hand over the physical possession of the schedule premises to them, being the decree holders and the court in execution petition ordered notice to judgment debtor and the son of judgment debtor preferred a claim petition claiming independent title over the petition schedule property through judgment debtor and after due contest the court dismissed the said claim petition. The petitioners further submitted that the matter was coming for hearing for the purpose of execution of warrant on 14.12.2017 and at their instance the court posted the matter to 20.1.2017 and their counsel while updating the next date in his court dairy, has updated the next date of hearing as 20.2.2017 instead of 20.1.2017 and the court posted the matter from 20.1.2017 to 31.1.2017 and as there was no representation, the EP was dismissed for default and immediately after coming to know about the dismissal of EP on 20.2.2017, they instructed their counsel to take steps to restore the EP to its original number and non representation on 31.1.2017 was neither willful nor wanton and if the EP is not restored to its original position, they will be put to irreparable loss and hardship which cannot be compensated. Hence, this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that respondent before preferred an appeal before the Honourable High Court and the same is pending and the petitioners intentionally suppressed the real facts in order to mislead the court. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a practicing advocate and he has know the court proceedings, but he has intentionally not come forward to appear before the court though the court gave several opportunities to the petitioners and the petitioners have not choose to explain the day to day delay in filing the petition and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The petitioners herein filed the EP against the respondent herein and the same was dismissed for default on 31.1.2017 and as such the petitioners herein filed the present petition to set aside the order dt.31.1.2017 and the respondent opposed the same.
On considering the contents of the petition affidavit, this court satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the petitioners in the petition. Further this court being the trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the matter on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties.
In view of the above reasons stated above, this court inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give an opportunity to the petitioner herein. No loss or injury would be caused to the respondent if the petition is allowed.
In the result, the petition is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.200/- to respondent on or before 10.5.2019. Or else the petition shall stand dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of May, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of June 2019
E.A.No.8 of 2017
IN
EPSR No.4533 of 2012
IN
R.C.No.304 of 1999
Between:
Heerachand S/o. Late Sri Nihalchand Aged 58 years, Occ: Nil, R/o.Shalibanda (Now at Attapur) Hyderabad. ….Petitioner /Decreeholder AND
V.S. Shukla S/o. R.C. Shukla Aged 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o.15-6-156, Kolsawadi,
Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent /Judgment debtor
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Sunil Kamthankar, Advcoate for the petitioner and of Sri Ravi Kumar Vora, Advcoate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under 23(1) of Rent Control Act read with section 151 CPC praying the court to condone the delay one year and 364 days in filing the EP and to register the EP for passing necessary orders in the interest of justice by stating that the respondent is the owner of the schedule property filed false eviction case vide RC.No.304/1999 and obtained exparte eviction order and thereafter filed EP.NO.39/1999 and obtained possession by executing the exparte eviction order and the petitioner herein filed applications to restitute the possession of schedule property and also other application to set aside the exparte orders and also to maintain status quo in respect of schedule property and the said petition was allowed and the I.A.No.699/2000 filed for restitution of possession initially was dismissed and subsequently in R.A.No.30/2005 was allowed on 13.4.2009 by the Honourable Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and directed the respondent herein to redeliver the possession of schedule property to the petitioner herein within two months. The petitioner further submitted that against the said judgment the respondent preferred CRP No.2397/2009 and the same was also dismissed on 8.6.2011. The petitioner further submitted that thereafter the relevant papers were taken and kept in his house for filing execution petition and in the year 2012 he shifted his house from Shalibanda to Attapur and in the said transaction all the papers were misplaced and apart from this he was also suffering from various ailments, as such he could not trace the papers in time and handed over to counsel for filing in court and thereafter thorough search the same were traced out and thereafter EP was filed on 7.12.2012 and after that there is a delay of one year in filing the EP and the delay is not intentional or deliberate but due to above facts. Hence, this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The petitioner herein did not file any EP within period of 6 months from 8.6.2011 and the petitioner herein mischievously mentioned EPSR No.4404/2012 and misguiding the court and the CRP No.2397/2009 heard exparte and the respondent herein filed I.A.1/2011in CRP No.2397/2009 filed on 7.7.2011 and the same is pending along with connected CRP No.4042/2011 which is filed against R.A.No.31/2006 in I.A.No.698/2000 and the petitioner herein did not disclose the fact before the court and when the EP itself is not filed before the court within the period of 6 months, question of filing the condoned delay petition does not arise and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Head arguments of both sides.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for respondent specifically contended that the petitioner herein filed EP in the year 2012 without delay condonation petition and the petitioner herein filed delay condonation petition on 2.1.2017 and how the petition is maintainable when it is filed after lapse of five years, when the EP was at the stage of SR and for resubmission.
The learned counsel for petitioner argued that due to some unavoidable facts he could not restore the EP in the year 2016 he came to know that EP returned as there is no delay condonation petition filed, as such he filed the delay condonation petition in the year 2017. The petitioner herein filed the present petition to condone delay of 364 days to file EPSR 4533/2012. On the other hand, the respondent opposed the same.
Perused the petition affidavit, counter and contentions of both the parties. On considering the contents of the petition affidavit, this court satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the petitioner in the petition and further this court being the trial court is under obligation to dispose of the matter by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner herein.
In view of the above reasons stated above, this court inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give an opportunity to the petitioner herein. No loss or injury would be caused to the respondent if the petition is allowed.
In the result, the petition is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to respondent on or before 10.6.2019. Or else the petition shall stand dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of June, 2019.
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of April, 2019
I.A.No.55 of 2019
IN
R.C.NO.101 of 2013
Between:
Mohammed Osman S/o. Mohammed Akbar Hussain, 60 years, Pvt Service NRI of KSA, at present R/o.H.No.11-2-520, Habeebnagar, Nampally, Hyderabad.
….Petitioner AND
Yousuf Hussain S/o. Mohammed Akbar Hussain, 51 years, Service, R/o.H.No.11-2-520, Habeebnagar, Nampally, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Mirza Abdul Khader Baig, Advcoate for the petitioner and of Sri K.K. Waghray, Advcoate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the documents stating that the witness Mohd Khursheed Hussain has brought the latest FATWA from the Jamian Nizamia Hyderabad in which it is clearly mentioned that when the Hiba Deed is executed by the father of the petitioner and respondent, who is the owner of the property and the FATWA issued on 29.12.2013 becomes null and void because of Islamic Law (Mohammedian Law) there is specific directions that when a Hiba is executed by the property owner and the conditions are full filled the legal heirs are not entitled any share in the property. The petitioner further submitted that Khusheed Hussain brought the FATWA from the Jamia Nizamia Hyderabad as both the cases are running years together i.e., six yeas elapsed and still the cases are pending in between them and the respondent herein obtained the FATWA from Jamia Nizamia Hyderabad stating that the property is to be partitioned as per FATWA dt.29.12.2013 when the property already gifted as per the gift deed dt.20.8.2005 in writing prior to that orally gifted on 2.10.2004 in the presence of all the family members and took the signatures of the brothers and sisters i.e., legal heirs and handed over all the relevant papers of the house in token of acceptance of the deed and the respondent herein misleaded the court by filing the FATWA for partition and hence there is no need of partition of the property in the presence of gift deed that means no property left by the father of the petitioner and respondent and hence no question of partitioning of the property and prays the court to receive the documents. Hence, this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that no cogent and justifiable grounds are made out by the petitioner seeking to receive the document i.e., alleged fatwa and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
Perused the petition and counter. The petitioner herein filed the RC against the respondent herein for eviction and the same is coming for further evidence of petitioner and at this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petition to receive the above said document for the purpose of marking and the respondent opposed the same.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that: Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
Mere receiving of document will not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of documents at the time of cross examine the witness. Further the document filed by the petitioner is original.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the above said document is ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of May, 2019.
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of April, 2019
E.A.No.14 of 2019
IN
E.A.No.3 of 2012
IN
E.P.No.4 of 2007
IN
O.S.No.220 of 2007
Between:
G. Chenna Reddy S/o. Late Ranga Reddy Aged about 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-4-368/B, Hemavathinagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.
….Petitioner/Petitioner/Decreeholder AND
1. Mond Osman (died per LRs respondents/Jdrs No.2 to 5 herein)
2. Smt. Shenaz Begum W/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 42 years, Occ: Household,
3. Hanasa D/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 22 years, Occ: Household,
4. Sri Mohd Sohail S/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 18 years, Occ: Student,
5. Mohd Rahil S/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 16 years, Occ: Student,
6. Reema Banu S/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 15 years, Occ: Student,
7. Shama Tehreen D/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 13 years, Occ: Student,
8. Shaaz Banu D/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 7 years, Occ: Student,
All are R/o.8-3-167/B/4/1, Sreeramnagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. …Respondents/Judgment Debtors
9. Mohammed Munawar S/o. Late Mohammed Jahangir, Aged 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-229/E/56, Venkatgiri, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
10. Shaik Mohammed Hussain S/o. Shaik Ameer Ali, Aged: Major, Occ: Business, R/o.8-4-544/S/18, Sulthan Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.
11. P. Suresh Babu S/o. P. Basavaiah, R/o. Flat No.401, Heritage Residency, Plot No.87 & 88, Dharma Reddy Colony, Phase-I, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad.
12. Mohd Raheem S/o. Mohammed Ghouse, R/o.H.NHO.1-96/3, Allapur, Borabanda, Hyderabad.
13. Y. Bhaskar S/o. Late Rasaiah, R/o.H.NO.8-3-167,B/4, Sriramnagar Area, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
14. Mohd Mohsin S/o. Mohd Miskeen, R/o. Flat No.206, Prajay Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
(Respondents No.2 to 8 were already set exparte in the Main EP and as such they are not necessary parties to this Petition) …. Respondent/Respondent/Judgment Debtors
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri E. Srimanth Reddy, Advcoate for the petitioner and of Sri N. Kama Raju, Advcoate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner, who is the petitioner in
EP.No.4 of 2007 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC read with section 151
CPC praying the court to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking the documents, which are very crucial stating that on 22.2.2019 the cross examination of PW.1 was completed and after perusal of entire cross examination of PW.1, some additional issues were came into picture, as such the petitioner/decreeholder now seeks to file some additional documents i.e., notice issued by MRO dt.28.4.1998, assessment demand notice issued by MRO office dt.30.4.1998, proceedings issued by ULC dt.28.11.1994, certified copy of encumbrance certificate dt.26.12.2005 and copy of proceedings of deputy commissioner of circle dt.23.8.2010 as the contents related to said documents was already pleaded in the above case, as the said documents were not filed previously due to inadvertence and the said documents are very much crucial to this case and as such it is just and necessary to recall PW.1 for further marking of above said documents. Hence, this petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner herein filed the petitions for receiving documents, reopening of evidence and recall PW.1 for marking of said documents, but the petitioner miserably failed to show any good cause for non production of documents filed along with petition at the earlier stage, except by stating vague and generic reasons and the petitioner did not state the alleged
additional issues which came into picture and there is no whisper of the
documents, therefore question of not filing the said documents due to inadvertence does not arise and the petitioner is only trying to protract the litigation by filing one petition or the other and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
Perused the petition and counter. The petitioner herein filed the E.A.No.3/2012 against the respondents and the same is coming for further evidence of petitioner and at this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petitioner to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking of documents and the respondents opposed the same.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs, on a condition that PW.1 shall present on 7.5.2019 for marking of above said documents, or else the petition shall stand dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of April, 2019.
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of April, 2019
E.A.No.15 of 2019
IN
E.A.No.3 of 2012
IN
E.P.No.4 of 2007
IN
O.S.No.220 of 2007
Between:
G. Chenna Reddy S/o. Late Ranga Reddy Aged about 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-4-368/B, Hemavathinagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.
….Petitioner/Petitioner/Decreeholder AND
1. Mond Osman (died per LRs respondents/Jdrs No.2 to 5 herein)
2. Smt. Shenaz Begum W/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 42 years, Occ: Household,
3. Hanasa D/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 22 years, Occ: Household,
4. Sri Mohd Sohail S/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 18 years, Occ: Student,
5. Mohd Rahil S/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 16 years, Occ: Student,
6. Reema Banu S/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 15 years, Occ: Student,
7. Shama Tehreen D/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 13 years, Occ: Student,
8. Shaaz Banu D/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 7 years, Occ: Student,
All are R/o.8-3-167/B/4/1, Sreeramnagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. …Respondents/Judgment Debtors
9. Mohammed Munawar S/o. Late Mohammed Jahangir, Aged 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-229/E/56, Venkatgiri, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
10. Shaik Mohammed Hussain S/o. Shaik Ameer Ali, Aged: Major, Occ: Business, R/o.8-4-544/S/18, Sulthan Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.
11. P. Suresh Babu S/o. P. Basavaiah, R/o. Flat No.401, Heritage Residency, Plot No.87 & 88, Dharma Reddy Colony, Phase-I, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad.
12. Mohd Raheem S/o. Mohammed Ghouse, R/o.H.NHO.1-96/3, Allapur, Borabanda, Hyderabad.
13. Y. Bhaskar S/o. Late Rasaiah, R/o.H.NO.8-3-167,B/4,
Sriramnagar Area, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
14. Mohd Mohsin S/o. Mohd Miskeen, R/o. Flat No.206, Prajay Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
(Respondents No.2 to 8 were already set exparte in the Main EP and as such they are not necessary parties to this Petition) …. Respondent/Respondent/Judgment Debtors
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri E. Srimanth Reddy, Advcoate for the petitioner and of Sri N. Kama Raju, Advcoate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner, who is the petitioner in
EP.No.4 of 2007 under section 151 CPC praying the court to reopen the
evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of marking the documents, which are very crucial stating that on 22.2.2019 the cross examination of PW.1 was completed and after perusal of entire cross examination of PW.1, some
additional issues were came into picture, as such the petitioner/
decreeholder now seeks to file some additional documents i.e., notice issued by MRO dt.28.4.1998, assessment demand notice issued by MRO office dt.30.4.1998, proceedings issued by ULC dt.28.11.1994, certified copy of encumbrance certificate dt.26.12.2005 and copy of proceedings of deputy commissioner of circle dt.23.8.2010 as the contents related to said documents was already pleaded in the above case, as the said documents were not filed previously due to inadvertence and the said documents are very much crucial to this case and as such it is just and necessary to reopen the evidence of PW.1 for further marking of above said documents. Hence, this petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner herein filed the petitions for receiving documents, reopening of evidence and recall PW.1 for marking of said documents, but the petitioner miserably failed to show any good cause for non production of documents filed along with petition at the earlier stage, except by stating vague and generic reasons and the petitioner did not state the alleged
additional issues which came into picture and there is no whisper of the
documents, therefore question of not filing the said documents due to inadvertence does not arise and the petitioner is only trying to protract the litigation by filing one petition or the other and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
Perused the petition and counter. The petitioner herein filed the E.A.No.3/2012 against the respondents and the same is coming for further evidence of petitioner and at this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petitioner to reopen the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of marking of documents and the respondents opposed the same. This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of April, 2019.
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of April, 2019
E.A.No.16 of 2019
IN
E.A.No.3 of 2012
IN
E.P.No.4 of 2007
IN
O.S.No.220 of 2007
Between:
G. Chenna Reddy S/o. Late Ranga Reddy Aged about 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-4-368/B, Hemavathinagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.
….Petitioner/Petitioner/Decreeholder AND
1. Mond Osman (died per LRs respondents/Jdrs No.2 to 5 herein)
2. Smt. Shenaz Begum W/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 42 years, Occ: Household,
3. Hanasa D/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 22 years, Occ: Household,
4. Sri Mohd Sohail S/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 18 years, Occ: Student,
5. Mohd Rahil S/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 16 years, Occ: Student,
6. Reema Banu S/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 15 years, Occ: Student,
7. Shama Tehreen D/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 13 years, Occ: Student,
8. Shaaz Banu D/o. Late Mohd Osman, Aged about 7 years, Occ: Student,
All are R/o.8-3-167/B/4/1, Sreeramnagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
…Respondents/Judgment Debtors
9. Mohammed Munawar S/o. Late Mohammed Jahangir, Aged 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-229/E/56, Venkatgiri, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
10. Shaik Mohammed Hussain S/o. Shaik Ameer Ali, Aged: Major, Occ: Business, R/o.8-4-544/S/18, Sulthan Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.
11. P. Suresh Babu S/o. P. Basavaiah, R/o. Flat No.401, Heritage Residency, Plot No.87 & 88, Dharma Reddy Colony, Phase-I, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad.
12. Mohd Raheem S/o. Mohammed Ghouse, R/o.H.NHO.1-96/3, Allapur, Borabanda, Hyderabad.
13. Y. Bhaskar S/o. Late Rasaiah, R/o.H.NO.8-3-167,B/4, Sriramnagar Area, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
14. Mohd Mohsin S/o. Mohd Miskeen, R/o. Flat No.206, Prajay Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
(Respondents No.2 to 8 were already set exparte in the Main EP and as such they are not necessary parties to this Petition) …. Respondent/Respondent/Judgment Debtors
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri E. Srimanth Reddy, Advcoate for the petitioner and of Sri N. Kama Raju, Advcoate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner, who is the petitioner in
EP.No.4 of 2007 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC read with section 151
CPC praying the court to Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the documents for the purpose of marking the documents, which are very crucial stating that on 22.2.2019 the cross examination of PW.1 was completed and after perusal of entire cross examination of PW.1, some additional issues were came into picture, as such the petitioner/decreeholder now seeks to file some
additional documents i.e., notice issued by MRO dt.28.4.1998, assessment
demand notice issued by MRO office dt.30.4.1998, proceedings issued by
ULC dt.28.11.1994, certified copy of encumbrance certificate dt.26.12.2005 and copy of proceedings of deputy commissioner of circle dt.23.8.2010 as the contents related to said documents was already pleaded in the above case, as the said documents were not filed previously due to inadvertence and the said documents are very much crucial to this case and as such it is just and necessary. Hence, this petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner herein filed the petitions for receiving documents, reopening of evidence and recall PW.1 for marking of said documents, but the petitioner miserably failed to show any good cause for non production of documents filed along with petition at the earlier stage, except by stating vague and generic reasons and the petitioner did not state the alleged
additional issues which came into picture and there is no whisper of the
documents, therefore question of not filing the said documents due to inadvertence does not arise and the petitioner is only trying to protract the litigation by filing one petition or the other and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
Perused the petition and counter. The petitioner herein filed the E.A.No.3/2012 against the respondents and the same is coming for further evidence of petitioner and at this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petitioner to receive the above said documents for the purpose of marking and the respondents opposed the same.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents arenot relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that: Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
Mere receiving of documents will not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondents can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of documents at the time of cross examine the witness.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the above said documents are ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of April, 2019.
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2019
I.A.No.169 of 2018
IN
R.C.No.89 of 2015
Between:
1. Syed Omer Ali S/o. Syed Hussain, Age: 55 years, Occ: Business,
2. Shaheda Begum W/o. Syed Hussain, Age: 42 years, Occ: Household, Both are R/o.H.NO.R/o.23-5-305, Bowli Agha Farhad, Khazana Jalpally near Panchamikhi Hanuman Syed Ali Chabutra, Hyderabad.
….Petitioners/Respondents AND
Mohd Saleem Ahmed S/o. Late Mohd Ghulum Ghouse, Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-30/98, Ramchandra Nagar, Edibazar, Hyderabad. …. Respondent/Petitioner
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Mohd Turab Ali, Advcoate for the petitioners and of Sri M. Veeresham, Advcoate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioners, who are the respondents in the main RC under Rule 8(3) of R.C. Rules praying the court to set aside the exparte order dt.30.11.2015 stating that he came to know about filing of above case when the respondent on 01.04.2016 with the Mohd Rafeeq @ Mohd Rafi herein came to his house and dispossess his family illegally from the petition schedule property with the help of unsocial elements and after dispossession when they made enquiries, they came to know about filing of eviction case. The petitioners further submits that they have not received any notice from the court nor they refused or evaded to receive any notice from the court, they are permanent residents of petition schedule property. The respondent herein with the assistance of Mohd Rafeeq @ Mohd Rafi created sham fabricated documents only to evict them from the petition schedule property and they are not the tenants of Mohd Rafeeq @ Mohd Rafi or the respondent. The petitioners further submits that they are the absolute owners of the petition schedule property and the original owner late Mujaheda Begum, who is sister of petitioner No.1 had purchased the petition schedule property in the year 1990 and on 05.08.1992 she had orally gifted the petition schedule to him and at the same time handed over the possession of the petition schedule house to him and from that time he is in possession and enjoying the property as absolute owner. The petitioners further submits that the sister of petitioner No.1 late Mjaheda Begum after the death of her first husband, married one Mohd Rafeeq @ Mohd Rafi and his sister died on 03.10.2003 at Dubai United Arab Emirates and after her death Mohd Rafeeq @ Mohd Rafi came to Hyderabad and had taken the original sale deed from him by playing fraud and thereafter tried to interfere with his possession and when he could not dispossess him from the petition schedule property, he filed RC by colluding with the respondent and dispossess them. The petitioners further submits that after knowing about the exparte orders, they filed application to set aside the exparte orders vide I.A.No.96 of 2016 and the respondent herein appeared and filed counter and on 24.10.2016 they filed application in EP.No.2/2016 to restore their possession of the petition schedule property to them and on that day the junior counsel is not on record without any instructions or consent of the senior counsel, by mistake thinking that it is the duplication of the petitions, not pressed the I.A.No.96/2016 and due to not pressing of I.A.No.96/2016, it could not be passed on merits and they filed the fresh petition to set aside the exparte orders. The petitioners further submits that the exparte orders were passed on 30.11.2015 as they are not having knowledge, they could not file the petition in limitation of 30 days, they came to know about the case on 01.04.2016 and as such they filed I.A.No.96/2016 not pressed on 24.10.2016 and they filed delay petition vide I.A.NO.207/2016 which was allowed on 19.11.2018. Hence, this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that it is false that the petitioners have not received any notice from the court and never refused to receive any notice from the court and it is false to contend that he had created sham fabricated document with the assistance of said Mohd Rafeeq @ Mohd Rafi and it is false to contend that the petitioners are not his tenants and Mohd Rafeeq @ Mohd Rafi. The respondent further stated that the petitioners are aware of the petition filed by him and the petitioners have to file a civil suit for declaring themselves as the owners of the property but the present petition is not maintainable under the provisions of rent control act in view of denial of jural relationship as landlord and tenants and prays the court to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
Heard arguments.
The respondent herein filed RC.89/2015 against the petitioners herein for eviction and the same was disposed of and possession was delivered to the respondent herein and the petitioners herein filed the present petition to set aside the exparte order dt.30.11.2015 and the respondent opposed the same. On considering the contents of petition affidavit and facts of the case, this court is satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the petitioners and further this court being trial court, is under obligation to dispose of the matter on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties.
In view of the reasons stated above, this court inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give one more opportunity to the petitioners. No loss or injury would be caused to the respondents even if the petition is allowed.
In the result, the petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/- to be payable by the petitioners to the respondent on or before 18.4.2019. Or else the petition shall stand dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of April, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2019
I.A.S.R.No.237 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.57 of 2013
Between:
G. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen, R/o.H.No.17-2-840/3/1, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.2 AND
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its G. Secretary, Sama Narsimha Reddy (Petitioner)
2. A. Gopal Reddy S/o. A. Laxma Reddy Age: 62 years, Occ: Business (CA) R/o.17-2-581, Madannapet Mandi Saidabad, Hyderabad-59 …. Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner party in person and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present and heard. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the petition vide
I.A.NO.115/2014 in RC.No. 57/2013 to implead him as necessary party and after due contest the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and after dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal. After gap of five years the petitioner herein filed the present petition to implead him as necessary party in RC.No.48/2013 by stating that the Honourable High Court in second appeal No.217/2018 held that the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit to evict the defendant No.4 or other defendants and plaintiff or any other persons through due process of law. Perused the appeal No.217/2018 and I.A.NO.115/2014 in
RC.No.57/2013 and after perusal of the above said appeal and
I.A.115/2014, this court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner herein has not followed due process of law. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.115/2014 in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and he was kept quite for a period of five years and did not prefer any appeal against the said order and the petitioner herein failed to satisfy this court why he did not prefer any appeal against the above said order if his right is infrinched or he is the necessary party in the above said RC.
In appeal No.217/2018 the Honourable High Court held that the petitioner herein can file a separate suit against the parties, but there is no order that the petitioner herein can implead himself in the present RC.
Moreover, the present case is filed for eviction and the Rent Control Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the jural relationship between the parties and the Rent Control court does not have jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership between the parties. There is no need to implead necessary parties for eviction proceedings. If any rights of the petitioner is infrinched, he is at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent court.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2019
I.A.S.R.No.228 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.48 of 2013
Between:
G. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen, R/o.H.No.17-2-840/3/1, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.2 AND
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its G. Secretary, Sama Narsimha Reddy (Petitioner)
2. C. Rajaiah S/o. Not known C. Rajaiah & Sons C. Santosh Kumar R/o.17-2-581, Madannapet Mandi Saidabad, Hyderabad-59 …. Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner party in person and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present and heard. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the petition vide I.A.NO.106/2014 in RC.No. 48/2013 to implead him as necessary party and after due contest the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and after dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal. After gap of five years the petitioner herein filed the present petition to implead him as necessary party in RC.No.48/2013 by stating that the Honourable High Court in second appeal No.217/2018 held that the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit to evict the defendant No.4 or other defendants and plaintiff or any other persons through due process of law. Perused the appeal No.217/2018 and I.A.NO.106/2014 in
RC.No.48/2013 and after perusal of the above said appeal and
I.A.106/2014, this court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner herein has not followed due process of law. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.106/2014 in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and he was kept quite for a period of five years and did not prefer any appeal against the said order and the petitioner herein failed to satisfy this court why he did not prefer any appeal against the above said order if his right is infrinched or he is the necessary party in the above said RC.
In appeal No.217/2018 the Honourable High Court held that the petitioner herein can file a separate suit against the parties, but there is no order that the petitioner herein can implead himself in the present RC.
Moreover, the present case is filed for eviction and the Rent Control Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the jural relationship between the parties and the Rent Control court does not have jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership between the parties. There is no need to implead necessary parties for eviction proceedings. If any rights of the petitioner is infrinched, he is at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent court.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2019
I.A.S.R.No.229 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.49 of 2013
Between:
G. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen, R/o.H.No.17-2-840/3/1, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.2
AND
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its G. Secretary, Sama Narsimha Reddy (Petitioner)
2. R. Suddul Reddy S/o. R. Penta Reddy Age: 56 years, Occ: Business(C.A.) R/o.17-2-581, Madannapet Mandi Saidabad, Hyderabad-59 …. Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner party in person and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present and heard. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the petition vide I.A.NO.107/2014 in RC.No. 49/2013 to implead him as necessary party and after due contest the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and after dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal. After gap of five years the petitioner herein filed the present petition to implead him as necessary party in RC.No.49/2013 by stating that the Honourable High Court in second appeal No.217/2018 held that the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit to evict the defendant No.4 or other defendants and plaintiff or any other persons through due process of law. Perused the appeal No.217/2018 and I.A.NO.107/2014 in
RC.No.49/2013 and after perusal of the above said appeal and
I.A.107/2014, this court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner herein has not followed due process of law. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.107/2014 in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and he was kept quite for a period of five years and did not prefer any appeal against the said order and the petitioner herein failed to satisfy this court why he did not prefer any appeal against the above said order if his right is infrinched or he is the necessary party in the above said RC.
In appeal No.217/2018 the Honourable High Court held that the petitioner herein can file a separate suit against the parties, but there is no order that the petitioner herein can implead himself in the present RC.
Moreover, the present case is filed for eviction and the Rent Control Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the jural relationship between the parties and the Rent Control court does not have jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership between the parties. There is no need to implead necessary parties for eviction proceedings. If any rights of the petitioner is infrinched, he is at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent court.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2019
I.A.S.R.No.230 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.50 of 2013
Between:
G. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen, R/o.H.No.17-2-840/3/1, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.2 AND
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its G. Secretary, Sama Narsimha Reddy (Petitioner)
2. B. Krishna – B. Venkatesh S/o. Yadagiri Age: 65 years, Occ: Business(C.A.) R/o.17-2-581, Madannapet Mandi Saidabad, Hyderabad-59 …. Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner party in person and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present and heard. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the petition vide I.A.NO.108/2014 in RC.No. 50/2013 to implead him as necessary party and after due contest the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and after dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal. After gap of five years the petitioner herein filed the present petition to implead him as necessary party in RC.No.50/2013 by stating that the Honourable High Court in second appeal No.217/2018 held that the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit to evict the defendant No.4 or other defendants and plaintiff or any other persons through due process of law. Perused the appeal No.217/2018 and I.A.NO.108/2014 in
RC.No.50/2013 and after perusal of the above said appeal and
I.A.108/2014, this court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner herein has not followed due process of law. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.108/2014 in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and he was kept quite for a period of five years and did not prefer any appeal against the said order and the petitioner herein failed to satisfy this court why he did not prefer any appeal against the above said order if his right is infrinched or he is the necessary party in the above said RC.
In appeal No.217/2018 the Honourable High Court held that the petitioner herein can file a separate suit against the parties, but there is no order that the petitioner herein can implead himself in the present RC.
Moreover, the present case is filed for eviction and the Rent Control Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the jural relationship between the parties and the Rent Control court does not have jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership between the parties. There is no need to implead necessary parties for eviction proceedings. If any rights of the petitioner is infrinched, he is at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent court.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2019
I.A.S.R.No.231 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.51 of 2013
Between:
G. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen, R/o.H.No.17-2-840/3/1, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.2 AND
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its G. Secretary, Sama Narsimha Reddy (Petitioner)
2. B. Bheemarjun Reddy S/o. B. Yadagiri Reddy Age: 58years, Occ: Business(C.A.) R/o.17-2-581, Madannapet Mandi Saidabad, Hyderabad-59 …. Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner party in person and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present and heard. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the petition vide I.A.NO.109/2014 in RC.No. 51/2013 to implead him as necessary party and after due contest the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and after dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal. After gap of five years the petitioner herein filed the present petition to implead him as necessary party in RC.No.51/2013 by stating that the Honourable High Court in second appeal No.217/2018 held that the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit to evict the defendant No.4 or other defendants and plaintiff or any other persons through due process of law. Perused the appeal No.217/2018 and I.A.NO.109/2014 in
RC.No.51/2013 and after perusal of the above said appeal and
I.A.109/2014, this court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner herein has not followed due process of law. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.109/2014 in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and he was kept quite for a period of five years and did not prefer any appeal against the said order and the petitioner herein failed to satisfy this court why he did not prefer any appeal against the above said order if his right is infrinched or he is the necessary party in the above said RC.
In appeal No.217/2018 the Honourable High Court held that the petitioner herein can file a separate suit against the parties, but there is no order that the petitioner herein can implead himself in the present RC.
Moreover, the present case is filed for eviction and the Rent Control Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the jural relationship between the parties and the Rent Control court does not have jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership between the parties. There is no need to implead necessary parties for eviction proceedings. If any rights of the petitioner is infrinched, he is at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent court.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2019
I.A.S.R.No.232 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.52 of 2013
Between:
G. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen, R/o.H.No.17-2-840/3/1, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.2 AND
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its G. Secretary, Sama Narsimha Reddy (Petitioner)
2. K. Janardhan Reddy S/o. K. Raja Reddy Age: 60 years, Occ: Business(C.A.) R/o.17-2-581, Madannapet Mandi Saidabad, Hyderabad-59 …. Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner party in person and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present and heard. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the petition vide I.A.NO.110/2014 in RC.No. 52/2013 to implead him as necessary party and after due contest the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and after dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal. After gap of five years the petitioner herein filed the present petition to implead him as necessary party in RC.No.52/2013 by stating that the Honourable High Court in second appeal No.217/2018 held that the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit to evict the defendant No.4 or other defendants and plaintiff or any other persons through due process of law. Perused the appeal No.217/2018 and I.A.NO.110/2014 in
RC.No.52/2013 and after perusal of the above said appeal and
I.A.110/2014, this court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner herein has not followed due process of law. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.110/2014 in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and he was kept quite for a period of five years and did not prefer any appeal against the said order and the petitioner herein failed to satisfy this court why he did not prefer any appeal against the above said order if his right is infrinched or he is the necessary party in the above said RC.
In appeal No.217/2018 the Honourable High Court held that the petitioner herein can file a separate suit against the parties, but there is no order that the petitioner herein can implead himself in the present RC.
Moreover, the present case is filed for eviction and the Rent Control Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the jural relationship between the parties and the Rent Control court does not have jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership between the parties. There is no need to implead necessary parties for eviction proceedings. If any rights of the petitioner is infrinched, he is at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent court.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2019
I.A.S.R.No.233 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.53 of 2013
Between:
G. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen, R/o.H.No.17-2-840/3/1, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.2 AND
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its G. Secretary, Sama Narsimha Reddy (Petitioner)
2. S. Janga Reddy S/o. S. Laxma Reddy(Ram Reddy) Age: 60 years, Occ: Business(C.A.) R/o.17-2-581, Madannapet Mandi
Saidabad, Hyderabad-59 …. Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner party in person and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present and heard. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the petition vide I.A.NO.111/2014 in RC.No. 53/2013 to implead him as necessary party and after due contest the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and after dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal. After gap of five years the petitioner herein filed the present petition to implead him as necessary party in RC.No.53/2013 by stating that the Honourable High Court in second appeal No.217/2018 held that the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit to evict the defendant No.4 or other defendants and plaintiff or any other persons through due process of law. Perused the appeal No.217/2018 and I.A.NO.111/2014 in
RC.No.53/2013 and after perusal of the above said appeal and
I.A.111/2014, this court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner herein has not followed due process of law. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.111/2014 in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and he was kept quite for a period of five years and did not prefer any appeal against the said order and the petitioner herein failed to satisfy this court why he did not prefer any appeal against the above said order if his right is infrinched or he is the necessary party in the above said RC.
In appeal No.217/2018 the Honourable High Court held that the petitioner herein can file a separate suit against the parties, but there is no order that the petitioner herein can implead himself in the present RC.
Moreover, the present case is filed for eviction and the Rent Control Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the jural relationship between the parties and the Rent Control court does not have jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership between the parties. There is no need to implead necessary parties for eviction proceedings. If any rights of the petitioner is infrinched, he is at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent court.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2019
I.A.S.R.No.234 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.54 of 2013
Between:
G. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen,
R/o.H.No.17-2-840/3/1, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.2 AND
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its G. Secretary, Sama Narsimha Reddy (Petitioner)
2. M. Gopal Reddy S/o. M. Ranga Reddy Age: 60 years, Occ: Business(C.A.) R/o.17-2-581, Madannapet Mandi Saidabad, Hyderabad-59 …. Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner party in person and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present and heard. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the petition vide I.A.NO.112/2014 in RC.No. 54/2013 to implead him as necessary party and after due contest the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and after dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal. After gap of five years the petitioner herein filed the present petition to implead him as necessary party in RC.No.54/2013 by stating that the Honourable High Court in second appeal No.217/2018 held that the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit to evict the defendant No.4 or other defendants and plaintiff or any other persons through due process of law. Perused the appeal No.217/2018 and I.A.NO.112/2014 in
RC.No.54/2013 and after perusal of the above said appeal and
I.A.112/2014, this court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner herein has not followed due process of law. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.112/2014 in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and he was kept quite for a period of five years and did not prefer any appeal against the said order and the petitioner herein failed to satisfy this court why he did not prefer any appeal against the above said order if his right is infrinched or he is the necessary party in the above said RC.
In appeal No.217/2018 the Honourable High Court held that the petitioner herein can file a separate suit against the parties, but there is no order that the petitioner herein can implead himself in the present RC.
Moreover, the present case is filed for eviction and the Rent Control Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the jural relationship between the parties and the Rent Control court does not have jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership between the parties. There is no need to implead necessary parties for eviction proceedings. If any rights of the petitioner is infrinched, he is at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent court.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2019
I.A.S.R.No.236 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.56 of 2013
Between:
G. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen, R/o.H.No.17-2-840/3/1, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.2 AND
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its G. Secretary, Sama Narsimha Reddy (Petitioner)
2. B. Yella Reddy S/o. B. Anantha Reddy Age: 61 years, Occ: Business(C.A.) R/o.17-2-581, Madannapet Mandi Saidabad, Hyderabad-59 …. Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner party in person and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present and heard. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the petition vide I.A.NO.114/2014 in RC.No. 56/2013 to implead him as necessary party and after due contest the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and after dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal. After gap of five years the petitioner herein filed the present petition to implead him as necessary party in RC.No.56/2013 by stating that the Honourable High Court in second appeal No.217/2018 held that the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit to evict the defendant No.4 or other defendants and plaintiff or any other persons through due process of law. Perused the appeal No.217/2018 and I.A.NO.114/2014 in
RC.No.56/2013 and after perusal of the above said appeal and
I.A.114/2014, this court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner herein has not followed due process of law. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.114/2014 in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and he was kept quite for a period of five years and did not prefer any appeal against the said order and the petitioner herein failed to satisfy this court why he did not prefer any appeal against the above said order if his right is infrinched or he is the necessary party in the above said RC.
In appeal No.217/2018 the Honourable High Court held that the petitioner herein can file a separate suit against the parties, but there is no order that the petitioner herein can implead himself in the present RC.
Moreover, the present case is filed for eviction and the Rent Control Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the jural relationship between the parties and the Rent Control court does not have jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership between the parties. There is no need to implead necessary parties for eviction proceedings. If any rights of the petitioner is infrinched, he is at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent court.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2019
I.A.S.R.No.235 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.55 of 2013
Between:
G. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen, R/o.H.No.17-2-840/3/1, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.2 AND
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its G. Secretary, Sama Narsimha Reddy (Petitioner)
2. C. Ram Reddy S/o. C. Penta Reddy Age: 59 years, Occ: Business(C.A.) R/o.17-2-581, Madannapet Mandi Saidabad, Hyderabad-59 …. Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner party in person and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present and heard. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the petition vide I.A.NO.113/2014 in RC.No. 55/2013 to implead him as necessary party and after due contest the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and after dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal. After gap of five years the petitioner herein filed the present petition to implead him as necessary party in RC.No.55/2013 by stating that the Honourable High Court in second appeal No.217/2018 held that the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit to evict the defendant No.4 or other defendants and plaintiff or any other persons through due process of law. Perused the appeal No.217/2018 and I.A.NO.113/2014 in
RC.No.55/2013 and after perusal of the above said appeal and
I.A.113/2014, this court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner herein has not followed due process of law. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.113/2014 in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and he was kept quite for a period of five years and did not prefer any appeal against the said order and the petitioner herein failed to satisfy this court why he did not prefer any appeal against the above said order if his right is infrinched or he is the necessary party in the above said RC.
In appeal No.217/2018 the Honourable High Court held that the petitioner herein can file a separate suit against the parties, but there is no order that the petitioner herein can implead himself in the present RC.
Moreover, the present case is filed for eviction and the Rent Control Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the jural relationship between the parties and the Rent Control court does not have jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership between the parties. There is no need to implead necessary parties for eviction proceedings. If any rights of the petitioner is infrinched, he is at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent court.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2019
I.A.S.R.No.238 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.58 of 2013
Between:
G. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen, R/o.H.No.17-2-840/3/1, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.2 AND
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its G. Secretary, Sama Narsimha Reddy (Petitioner)
2. Katiki Reddy Ram Reddy S/o. K. Narayan Reddy Age: 56 years, Occ: Business(C.A.) R/o.17-2-581, Madannapet Mandi Saidabad, Hyderabad-59 …. Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner party in person and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present and heard. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the petition vide I.A.NO.116/2014 in RC.No. 58/2013 to implead him as necessary party and after due contest the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and after dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal. After gap of five years the petitioner herein filed the present petition to implead him as necessary party in RC.No.58/2013 by stating that the Honourable High Court in second appeal No.217/2018 held that the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit to evict the defendant No.4 or other defendants and plaintiff or any other persons through due process of law. Perused the appeal No.217/2018 and I.A.NO.116/2014 in
RC.No.58/2013 and after perusal of the above said appeal and
I.A.116/2014, this court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner herein has not followed due process of law. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.116/2014 in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and he was kept quite for a period of five years and did not prefer any appeal against the said order and the petitioner herein failed to satisfy this court why he did not prefer any appeal against the above said order if his right is infrinched or he is the necessary party in the above said RC.
In appeal No.217/2018 the Honourable High Court held that the petitioner herein can file a separate suit against the parties, but there is no order that the petitioner herein can implead himself in the present RC.
Moreover, the present case is filed for eviction and the Rent Control Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the jural relationship between the parties and the Rent Control court does not have jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership between the parties. There is no need to implead necessary parties for eviction proceedings. If any rights of the petitioner is infrinched, he is at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent court.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2019
I.A.S.R.No.226 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.46 of 2013
Between:
G. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen, R/o.H.No.17-2-840/3/1, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.2 AND
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its G. Secretary, Sama Narsimha Reddy (Petitioner)
2. B. Devender Reddy S/o. B. Narayan Reddy Age: 58 years, Occ: Business(C.A.) R/o.17-2-581, Madannapet Mandi Saidabad, Hyderabad-59 …. Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner party in person and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present and heard. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the petition vide I.A.NO.104/2014 in RC.No. 46/2013 to implead him as necessary party and after due contest the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and after dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal. After gap of five years the petitioner herein filed the present petition to implead him as necessary party in RC.No.46/2013 by stating that the Honourable High Court in second appeal No.217/2018 held that the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit to evict the defendant No.4 or other defendants and plaintiff or any other persons through due process of law. Perused the appeal No.217/2018 and I.A.NO.104/2014 in
RC.No.46/2013 and after perusal of the above said appeal and
I.A.104/2014, this court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner herein has not followed due process of law. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.104/2014 in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and he was kept quite for a period of five years and did not prefer any appeal against the said order and the petitioner herein failed to satisfy this court why he did not prefer any appeal against the above said order if his right is infrinched or he is the necessary party in the above said RC.
In appeal No.217/2018 the Honourable High Court held that the petitioner herein can file a separate suit against the parties, but there is no order that the petitioner herein can implead himself in the present RC.
Moreover, the present case is filed for eviction and the Rent Control Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the jural relationship between the parties and the Rent Control court does not have jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership between the parties. There is no need to implead necessary parties for eviction proceedings. If any rights of the petitioner is infrinched, he is at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent court.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2019
I.A.S.R.No.227 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.47 of 2013
Between:
G. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen, R/o.H.No.17-2-840/3/1, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.2
AND
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its G. Secretary, Sama Narsimha Reddy (Petitioner)
2. M. Ram Reddy S/o. M. Yella Reddy Age: 60 years, Occ: Business(C.A.) R/o.17-2-581, Madannapet Mandi Saidabad, Hyderabad-59 …. Respondents
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of petitioner party in person and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present and heard. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the petition vide I.A.NO.105/2014 in RC.No. 47/2013 to implead him as necessary party and after due contest the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and after dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal. After gap of five years the petitioner herein filed the present petition to implead him as necessary party in RC.No.47/2013 by stating that the Honourable High Court in second appeal No.217/2018 held that the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit to evict the defendant No.4 or other defendants and plaintiff or any other persons through due process of law. Perused the appeal No.217/2018 and I.A.NO.105/2014 in
RC.No.46/2013 and after perusal of the above said appeal and
I.A.105/2014, this court is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner herein has not followed due process of law. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.105/2014 in the year 2014 and the same was dismissed on 24.6.2014 and he was kept quite for a period of five years and did not prefer any appeal against the said order and the petitioner herein failed to satisfy this court why he did not prefer any appeal against the above said order if his right is infrinched or he is the necessary party in the above said RC.
In appeal No.217/2018 the Honourable High Court held that the petitioner herein can file a separate suit against the parties, but there is no order that the petitioner herein can implead himself in the present RC.
Moreover, the present case is filed for eviction and the Rent Control Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the jural relationship between the parties and the Rent Control court does not have jurisdiction to decide the title or ownership between the parties. There is no need to implead necessary parties for eviction proceedings. If any rights of the petitioner is infrinched, he is at liberty to file a separate suit before the competent court.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2019
I.A.No.53 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.190 of 2008
Between:
Between:
Mrs. Sofia Hasan rep. through her GPA Zulfaquar Alam S/o. Late Akbar Alam, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. 5-6-94, New Aghapura, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Petitioner AND
Shaik Mansoor Ali S/o. Late Shaik Maqdoom Ali, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o.6-3-666/3/B, Jaffar Ali Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Haroon Osman, Advocate for the Petitioner/petitioner and of Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for the Respondent/respondent, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the GPA holder of the petitioner in the main RC under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the document i.e., release deed dt.23.5.2007 vide document No.1134/2007 executed between family members of respondent in respect of property bearing No.6-3-663/3/B, situated at Jafar Ali Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad registered at SRO, SR Nagar, Hyderabad stating that the said release deed is very significant document to prove the default by the respondent and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the said document is received, otherwise the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated at any cost. Hence, this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that what prevented the petitioner not file the said document when he was in the witness box and the petition must also disclose that when they came to know about the said document and the petition to receive the document, thereby reopening the evidence of petitioner and recalling PW.1 is nothing but an abuse of process of the court and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
Perused the petition and counter. The petitioner herein filed the main RC against the respondent herein for eviction rent and the same is coming for arguments of both parties. At this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petition to receive the above said document for the purpose of marking the same and the respondent opposed the same.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents arenot relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that: “Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
Mere receiving of document will not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of document at the time of cross examine the witness. Further the document filed by the petitioner is certified copy.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the above said document is ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2019
I.A.No.48 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.190 of 2008
Between:
Between:
Mrs. Sofia Hasan rep. through her GPA Zulfaquar Alam S/o. Late Akbar Alam, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. 5-6-94, New Aghapura, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Petitioner AND
Shaik Mansoor Ali S/o. Late Shaik Maqdoom Ali, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o.6-3-666/3/B, Jaffar Ali Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Haroon Osman, Advocate for the Petitioner/petitioner and of Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for the Respondent/respondent, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the GPA holder of the petitioner in the main RC under section 151 CPC praying the court to reopen the evidence of PW.1 stating that the court closed the evidence of PW.1 long back and the petitioner is filing the release deed dt.23.5.2007 vide document No.1134/2007 executed between family members of respondent in respect of property bearing No.6-3-663/3/B, situated at Jafar Ali Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad registered at SRO, SR Nagar, Hyderabad and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, otherwise the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated at any cost. Hence, this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that how the said document is relevant to decide the issue involved in the above case and what made them not file the said document immediately when according to them, it is a crucial document and satisfactory explanation is not given to receive the said document at present and the petition to receive the document, thereby reopening the evidence of petitioner and recalling PW.1 is nothing but an abuse of process of the court and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
Perused the petition and counter. The petitioner herein filed the main RC against the respondent herein for eviction rent and the same is coming for arguments of both parties. At this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petition to reopen the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of marking the above said document and the respondent opposed the same. This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2019
I.A.No.49 of 2019
IN
R.C.No.190 of 2008
Between:
Between:
Mrs. Sofia Hasan rep. through her GPA Zulfaquar Alam S/o. Late Akbar Alam, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. 5-6-94, New Aghapura, Hyderabad. ….Petitioner/Petitioner AND
Shaik Mansoor Ali S/o. Late Shaik Maqdoom Ali, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o.6-3-666/3/B, Jaffar Ali Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Haroon Osman, Advocate for the Petitioner/petitioner and of Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for the Respondent/respondent, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the GPA holder of the petitioner in the main RC under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC praying the court to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking the document i.e., release deeed stating that the court closed the evidence of PW.1 long back and the petitioner is filing the release deed dt.23.5.2007 vide document No.1134/2007 executed between family members of respondent in respect of property bearing No.6-3-663/3/B, situated at Jafar Ali Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad registered at SRO, SR Nagar, Hyderabad and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, otherwise the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated at any cost. Hence, this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that how the said document is relevant to decide the issue involved in the above case and what made them not file the said document immediately when according to them, it is a crucial document and satisfactory explanation is not given to receive the said document at present and the petition to receive the document, thereby reopening the evidence of petitioner and recalling PW.1 is nothing but an abuse of process of the court and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
Perused the petition and counter. The petitioner herein filed the main RC against the respondent herein for eviction rent and the same is coming for arguments of both parties. At this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petition to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking the above said document and the respondent opposed the same.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs, on a condition that PW.1 shall present on 1.3.2019 for marking of above said document, or else the petition shall stand dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2019
E.P.No.32 of 2000
IN
R.C.No.158 of 2000
Between:-
1. Sakina Bee W/o. Late Mohd Osman, Age: 67 years, Occ: Business(died per Lrs)
2. M.A. Majeed S/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business,
3. M.A. Rahman S/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 26 years, Occ: Business,
4. M.A. Bari s/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 23 years, Occ: Business,
All are R/o.23-1-897, Moghal Pura, Hyderabad.
…. Decree holders
1. Ayesha Begum (died per L.Rs.)
2. Mohd Yousuf Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 50 years,
3. Mohd Sadath Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 47 years,
4. Shoukat Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 45 years,
5. Mohd Azam Ali S/o. Late Md. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 34 years,
6. Mohd Mozam Ali S/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 32 years,
7. Mohd Mukkaram Ali S/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 30 years,
8. Biliquis Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 54 years,
9. Anjum Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 48 years,
10. Nusrath Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 44 years,
11. Shahnaz Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 43 years,
12. Anees Begum, D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 33 years, All are R/o.H.No.22-6-865, Panjeshah, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents/judgment debtors
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri V. Kumar Purohit, Advocate for respondent No.5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Counsel for judgment debtor No.5 filed petition U/s.151 of CPC and the same is returned. Bailiff filed executed warrant report along with possession receipts stating that part and parcel of premises No.22-6-151 is delivered to decree holder. Perused the entire bailiff report and possession receipt. Hence EP is terminated as per bailiff report.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of February, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2019
E.P.No.2 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.137 of 2014
Between:- Devanand Tanpure S/o. Late Niranjan Rao Tanpure Aged about 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.NO.13-5-184, Amlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Decreeholder
A n d
Babu Rao Shinde S/o. Shiv Ram Shinde Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.13-5-184, First Floor, Amlapura, Karwan, Hyerabad. … Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Manik Lal Yadav, Advocate for decreeholder and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Bailiff filed executed warrant report along with possession receipt, stating that PSP delivered to decree holder. Perused the bailiff report. As per bailiff report, this EP is terminated.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of January, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2019
E.A.No.1 of 2019
IN
E.P.No.2 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.137 of 2014
Between:- Devanand Tanpure S/o. Late Niranjan Rao Tanpure Aged about 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.NO.13-5-184, Amlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Decreeholder
A n d
Babu Rao Shinde S/o. Shiv Ram Shinde Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.13-5-184, First Floor, Amlapura, Karwan, Hyerabad. … Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Manik Lal Yadav, Advocate for decreeholder and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Decree holder counsel is present and heard. Perused the petition affidavit, in the interest of justice, this petition is allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of January, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2019
E.A.No.2 of 2019
IN
E.P.No.2 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.137 of 2014
Between:- Devanand Tanpure S/o. Late Niranjan Rao Tanpure Aged about 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.NO.13-5-184, Amlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Decreeholder
A n d
Babu Rao Shinde S/o. Shiv Ram Shinde Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.13-5-184, First Floor, Amlapura, Karwan, Hyerabad. … Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Manik Lal Yadav, Advocate for decreeholder and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Decree holder counsel is present and heard. Perused the petition affidavit, in the interest of justice, this petition is allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of January, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2019
E.P.No.32 of 2000
IN
R.C.No.158 of 2000
Between:-
1. Sakina Bee W/o. Late Mohd Osman, Age: 67 years, Occ: Business(died per Lrs)
2. M.A. Majeed S/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business,
3. M.A. Rahman S/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 26 years, Occ: Business,
4. M.A. Bari s/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 23 years, Occ: Business,
All are R/o.23-1-897, Moghal Pura, Hyderabad.
…. Decree holders
1. Ayesha Begum (died per L.Rs.)
2. Mohd Yousuf Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 50 years,
3. Mohd Sadath Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 47 years,
4. Shoukat Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 45 years,
5. Mohd Azam Ali S/o. Late Md. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 34 years,
6. Mohd Mozam Ali S/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 32 years,
7. Mohd Mukkaram Ali S/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 30 years,
8. Biliquis Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 54 years,
9. Anjum Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 48 years,
10. Nusrath Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 44 years,
11. Shahnaz Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer,
Age: 43 years,
12. Anees Begum, D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 33 years, All are R/o.H.No.22-6-865, Panjeshah, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents/judgment debtors
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri V. Kumar Purohit, Advocate for respondent No.5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Decree holder counsel is present. E.A.S.R.No.1315 is rejected. Decree holder counsel is present and heard and filed E.A.No.3 and 4 and both the E.A’s are allowed. Issue fresh delivery warrant along with break open lock and police protection, on payment of process. The bailiff is directed to deliver possession of the property on identification of property by decree holder. For report call on 30.1.2019.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of January, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2019
E.P.No.32 of 2000
IN
R.C.No.158 of 2000
Between:-
1. Sakina Bee W/o. Late Mohd Osman, Age: 67 years, Occ: Business(died per Lrs)
2. M.A. Majeed S/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business,
3. M.A. Rahman S/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 26 years, Occ: Business,
4. M.A. Bari s/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 23 years, Occ: Business,
All are R/o.23-1-897, Moghal Pura, Hyderabad.
…. Decree holders
1. Ayesha Begum (died per L.Rs.)
2. Mohd Yousuf Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 50 years,
3. Mohd Sadath Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 47 years,
4. Shoukat Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 45 years,
5. Mohd Azam Ali S/o. Late Md. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 34 years,
6. Mohd Mozam Ali S/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 32 years,
7. Mohd Mukkaram Ali S/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 30 years,
8. Biliquis Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 54 years,
9. Anjum Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 48 years,
10. Nusrath Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 44 years,
11. Shahnaz Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 43 years,
12. Anees Begum, D/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 33 years, All are R/o.H.No.22-6-865, Panjeshah, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents/judgment debtors
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri V. Kumar Purohit, Advocate for respondent No.5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Decree holder counsel is present and filed E.A.13/19 and the same is allowed. Issue fresh delivery warrant to decree holder along with break open lock, police protection and remove demolish wall constructed in front of EP schedule along with other obstacles found in EP schedule property, as per EP schedule and on identification by decree holder. For report, call on 08.02.2019.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2019
E.A.No.13 of 2019
IN
E.P.No.32 of 2000
IN
R.C.No.158 of 2000
Between:-
1. Sakina Bee W/o. Late Mohd Osman, Age: 74 years, Occ: Business,
2. M.A. Majeed S/o. Late Md Osman Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business,
3. M.A. Rahman S/o. Late Osman Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business,
4. M.A. Bari s/o. Late Md Osman Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business,
All are R/o.23-1-897, MOghal Pura, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioners/Decree holders
1. Ayesha Begum (died per L.Rs.)
2. Mohd Yousuf Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 50 years,
3. Mohd Sadath Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 48 years,
4. Shoukat Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 46 years,
5. Mohd Azam Ali S/o. Late Md. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 44 years,
6. Mohd Mozam Ali S/o. Late Md. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 44 years,
7. MOhd Mukkaram Ali S/o. Late Md. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 40 years,
8. Biliquis Begum D/o. Late Md. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 60 years,
9. Anjum Begum D/o. Late Md. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 50 years,
10. Nusrath Begum D/o. Late Md. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 46 years,
11. Shahnaz Begum D/o. Late Md. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 45 years,
12. Anees Begum, D/o. Late Md. Khaja Muzaffer, Age: 40 years, All are R/o.H.No.22-6-865, Panjeshah, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents/judgment debtors
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri V. Kumar Purohit, Advocate for respondent No.5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner counsel is present and heard. Perused the petition, bailiff report and photographs filed by the petitioner counsel. Satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the petition and hence, in the interest of justice, this petition is allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2019
E.A.No.6 of 2019
IN
E.A.S.R.No.1315 of 2018
IN
E.P.No.32 of 2000
IN
R.C.No.158 of 2000
Between:- Mohd Azam Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer Ali, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.22-3-626/3, Mina Planza, Zehra Nagar, Hyderabad and at 7-835, Nawab Mohalla, Gulbarga, Karnataka.
…. Petitioner/Respondent No.5
1. Sakina Bee (died per Lrs)
2. Mohd Abdul Majid S/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business,
3. Mohd Abdul Rahman S/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business,
4. Mohd Abdul Bari s/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, all are R/o.23-1-897/1, Talab Katta Mirjumla, Hyderabad.
…. Respondents/Decree holders
5. Ayesha Begum (died per L.Rs.)
6. Mohd Yousuf Ali S/o. Mohd Muzaffar Ali Aged about 66 years, Occ: Business,
7. Mohd Sadar Ali S/o. Mohd Muzaffar Ali, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business,
8. Mohd Shoukat Ali S/o. Mohd Muzaffar Ali, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Business,
9. Mohd Mouzam Ali S/o. Mohd Muzaffar Ali, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,
10. Mohd Mukram Ali S/o. Mohd Muzaffar Ali, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business,
11. Bilquis Fatima D/o.Mohd Muzaffar Ali, aged about 68 years, Occ: Housewife,
12. Anjum Fatima W/o. Khader Khan, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Housewife,
13. Nusrath Fatima W/o. Basheeruddin Aged about 57 years, Occ: Housewife,
14. Shahnaz Fatima W/o. Late Abdul Qayyum, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Housewife,
15. Anees Fatima W/o. M.A. Malile, aged about 50 years, Occ: Housewife,
Respondents No.6 to 15 are the R/o.H.No.22-6-865, Panjeshah, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents/judgment debtors
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Kumar Purohit, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner counsel is present and heard. EP is posted to 24.01.2019.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of January, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2019
E.A.No.7 of 2019
IN
E.A.S.R.No.1315 of 2018
IN
E.P.No.32 of 2000
IN
R.C.No.158 of 2000
Between:- Mohd Azam Ali S/o. Late Mohd Khaja Muzaffer Ali, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.22-3-626/3, Mina Planza, Zehra Nagar, Hyderabad and at 7-835, Nawab Mohalla, Gulbarga, Karnataka.
…. Petitioner/Respondent No.5
1. Sakina Bee (died per Lrs)
2. Mohd Abdul Majid S/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business,
3. Mohd Abdul Rahman S/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business,
4. Mohd Abdul Bari s/o. Late Mohd Osman Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, all are R/o.23-1-897/1, Talab Katta Mirjumla, Hyderabad.
…. Respondents/Decree holders
5. Ayesha Begum (died per L.Rs.)
6. Mohd Yousuf Ali S/o. Mohd Muzaffar Ali Aged about 66 years, Occ: Business,
7. Mohd Sadar Ali S/o. Mohd Muzaffar Ali, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business,
8. Mohd Shoukat Ali S/o. Mohd Muzaffar Ali, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Business,
9. Mohd Mouzam Ali S/o. Mohd Muzaffar Ali, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,
10. Mohd Mukram Ali S/o. Mohd Muzaffar Ali, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business,
11. Bilquis Fatima D/o.Mohd Muzaffar Ali, aged about 68 years, Occ: Housewife,
12. Anjum Fatima W/o. Khader Khan, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Housewife,
13. Nusrath Fatima W/o. Basheeruddin Aged about 57 years, Occ: Housewife,
14. Shahnaz Fatima W/o. Late Abdul Qayyum, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Housewife,
15. Anees Fatima W/o. M.A. Malile, aged about 50 years, Occ: Housewife,
Respondents No.6 to 15 are the R/o.H.No.22-6-865, Panjeshah, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents/judgment debtors
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Kumar Purohit, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Both counsels are present. Heard arguments of both sides. Petitioner counsel reported that he is preferring appeal in EASR NO.1315/2018 and need one week time to prefer CRP till compliance of C.A. The counsel for decree holders argued that the claim petition is rejected at the stage before numbering and the claim petitioner is not party to the case, he can’t file this petition, as he is third party to the E.P., and claim petition decided not on merits, hence he can’t ask for extension of time in EP.
Heard both sides arguments. This found that the claim petitioner is third party to the proceedings and one of the JDR in main EP but after passing the EP on merits, the JDR not preferred any revision and filed the claim petition, which is rejection at the stage of EASR, without giving number. As such claim petitioner can’t ask for time, because he is third party to the EP. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of January, 2019.
I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC IV Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2019
I.A.No.50 of 2018
IN
R.C.No.111 of 2013
Between:-
1. Smt. Lalitha Bai W/o. Late Ramchander Singh. Aged 70 years, Occ: Household, H.No.12-1-630/3, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.
2. Mukesh Singh S/o. Late Ramchander Singh, Aged 42 years, Occ: Nil, H.No.12-1-630/3, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.
3. Bajrang Singh S/o. Late Ramchander Singh, Aged 39 years, Occ: Nil, H.No.12-1-630/3, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioners/Landlords/Owners AND
Gulrase S/o. Nazeer, Aged about 35 years, Tenant at mulgi of H.NO.12-1-630/3, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Tenant
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri M. Shivananda Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri Mohd Asif Amjad, Advocate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed under Rule 32 of CRP read with section 151 CPC praying the court to permit the petitioners General Power of Attorney
dated 27.08.2018 in favour of Sri Bhagwan Singh S/o. Late Kishan Singh
to represent and contest on petitioners’ behalf in RC.No.111 of 2013 stating that the petitioner No.1 is the landlord in the present RC and the petitioners No.2 and 3 are her sons and Sri Bhagwan Singh S/o. Late Kishan Singh, who is the younger brother of the husband of petitioner No.1 Late Ramchander Singh. The petitioners further submitted that they are the absolute owners and peaceful possessors and enjoyment of their ancestral property covered under sy.no.1/20 corresponding to 17/2 by virtue of occupany right certificate issued by RDO in file No.A1/3187/1975 dt.28.6.1978 to an extent of Ac.26.21 gts., situated at Asifnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. The petitioners further submitted that the above property has been mutated on the name of their ancestors i.e., late Balaji Singh and after his death, they are the owners and their other blood related relatives got succeeded in their hereditary rights over the above properties. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad allocated new numbers i.e., 12-1-615/A, 12-1-630/3.
The petitioner No.1 submitted that as she is an old lady suffering with number of diseases and her sons are illiterate persons and unable to approach the court to lead their evidence in the above case, hence they have appointed Sri Bhagwan Singh as their General Power of Attorney to depose, to file chief examination affidavit, petitions, counter etc., and to contest the above case on their behalf. Hence, this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the jural relationship between the petitioners and respondent and submitted that the petitioners filed the above RC for unlawful gain and sympathy and there are no sufficient reasons mentioned in the affidavit to the petition and no such pleadings in the above petition about the power of attorney is still subsisting nor filed any document or proof to show that the petitioner No.1 is suffering with different diseases, hence prays the court to dismiss the petition with costs.
Heard both side arguments.
The learned counsel for respondent filed the following citations:- (1) In Prasadi Devi Vs. Nagar Palika Sawai Madhopu (Now Nagar Parishad) reported in 2018(1) HLT 95 (SC). (2) In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., and others reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 439. (3) In Ramchandraiah Vs. Raj Kumar in Writ Petition No.6176 of 2013 (HRC) dt.18.3.2013.
After going through the citation, this court found that the facts of the above citations are different from present case, hence the above citations cannot be looked into.
Section 85 of Indian Evidence Act Presumption as to powers to attorney:- The court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, 1(Indian) Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative 2(***) of the 3 (Central Government), was so executed and authenticated.
On considering the contents of the petition affidavit, this court satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the petitioners, hence in the interest of justice this petition is allowed. No loss or injury would be caused to the respondent if the petition is allowed.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of January, 2019.
FAC IV ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC IV Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2019
I.A.No.51 of 2018
IN
R.C.No.112 of 2013
Between:-
1. Smt. Lalitha Bai W/o. Late Ramchander Singh. Aged 70 years, Occ: Household, H.No.12-1-630/3, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.
2. Mukesh Singh S/o. Late Ramchander Singh, Aged 42 years, Occ: Nil, H.No.12-1-630/3, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.
3. Bajrang Singh S/o. Late Ramchander Singh, Aged 39 years, Occ: Nil,
H.No.12-1-630/3, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioners/Landlords/Owners AND
Mohd Bilal S/o. Abdul Khaliq, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Business, Tenant at mulgi of H.NO.12-1-630/3, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Tenant
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri M. Shivananda Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri Mohd Asif Amjad, Advocate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed under Rule 32 of CRP read with section 151 CPC praying the court to permit the petitioners General Power of Attorney
dated 27.08.2018 in favour of Sri Bhagwan Singh S/o. Late Kishan Singh
to represent and contest on petitioners’ behalf in RC.No.111 of 2013 stating that the petitioner No.1 is the landlord in the present RC and the petitioners No.2 and 3 are her sons and Sri Bhagwan Singh S/o. Late Kishan Singh, who is the younger brother of the husband of petitioner No.1 Late Ramchander Singh. The petitioners further submitted that they are the absolute owners and peaceful possessors and enjoyment of their ancestral property covered under sy.no.1/20 corresponding to 17/2 by virtue of occupany right certificate issued by RDO in file No.A1/3187/1975 dt.28.6.1978 to an extent of Ac.26.21 gts., situated at Asifnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. The petitioners further submitted that the above property has been mutated on the name of their ancestors i.e., late Balaji Singh and after his death, they are the owners and their other blood related relatives got succeeded in their hereditary rights over the above properties. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad allocated new numbers i.e., 12-1-615/A, 12-1-630/3.
The petitioner No.1 submitted that as she is an old lady suffering with number of diseases and her sons are illiterate persons and unable to approach the court to lead their evidence in the above case, hence they have appointed Sri Bhagwan Singh as their General Power of Attorney to depose, to file chief examination affidavit, petitions, counter etc., and to contest the above case on their behalf. Hence, this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the jural relationship between the petitioners and respondent and submitted that the petitioners filed the above RC for unlawful gain and sympathy and there are no sufficient reasons mentioned in the affidavit to the petition and no such pleadings in the above petition about the power of attorney is still subsisting nor filed any document or proof to show that the petitioner No.1 is suffering with different diseases, hence prays the court to dismiss the petition with costs.
Heard both side arguments.
The learned counsel for respondent filed the following citations:- (1) In Prasadi Devi Vs. Nagar Palika Sawai Madhopu (Now Nagar Parishad) reported in 2018(1) HLT 95 (SC). (2) In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., and others reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 439. (3) In Ramchandraiah Vs. Raj Kumar in Writ Petition No.6176 of 2013 (HRC) dt.18.3.2013.
After going through the citation, this court found that the facts of the above citations are different from present case, hence the above citations cannot be looked into.
Section 85 of Indian Evidence Act Presumption as to powers to attorney:- The court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, 1(Indian) Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative 2(***) of the 3 (Central Government), was so executed and authenticated.
On considering the contents of the petition affidavit, this court satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the petitioners, hence in the interest of justice this petition is allowed. No loss or injury would be caused to the respondent if the petition is allowed.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of January, 2019.
FAC IV ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2018
E.A.No.18 of 2017 IN
E.A.No.22 of 2011
IN
E.P.No.7 of 2011
IN
R.C.No.423 of 2007
Between:-
Mohammed Samad Shareef, S/o. Late Mohammed Yousuf Shareef, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mulgi No.22-6-178 & 22-6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Claim petitioner/Third party AND
1. Mahender Kumar S/o. Late Jagdish Pershad, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,
2. Pavan Kumar S/o. Late Jagdish Pershad, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business,
Both are R/o.21-2-185, Charkaman, Hyderabad. … Respondents/Respondents/Decree holders
3. B.L. Agarwal S/o. Late Goverdandas, Aged about 76 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.NO.22-6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri M.S. Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 151 CPC praying the court to reopen the claim petitioner evidence for the purpose of correction of cross examination and marking of documents on behalf of the claim petitioner, stating that his cross examination has recorded by the advocate commissioner and the same was typed and made a fair copy in which there are typographical mistakes were crept in which are serious against him and apart from that at the time of filing of claim petition, he has not filed some crucial documents to his case, which were misplaced and traced out recently and same are recent documents and as such it is just and necessary that the court may be pleased to reopen the claim petitioner’s evidence for the purpose of filing of said documents on his behalf, otherwise he shall be put to heavy and irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any way. Hence, this petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner is intending to drag the matter and prays the court to dismiss the petition with costs.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The respondent No.1 herein filed EP.No.7/11 against the respondent No.2 herein and the same is pending as petitioner herein filed claim petition and the claim petition is at the stage of arguments and the claim petitioner filed the present petition to reopen his evidence for the purpose of marking documents. The respondents opposed the same.
This court being the trial court is under obligation to dispose of the claim petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence.
In view of the above said reasons, this court is inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give one more opportunity to the petitioner herein.
In the result, the petition is allowed partly for marking of document through PW.1.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of December, 2018.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima,
I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2018
E.A.No.19 of 2017 IN
E.A.No.22 of 2011
IN
E.P.No.7 of 2011
IN
R.C.No.423 of 2007
Between:-
Mohammed Samad Shareef, S/o. Late Mohammed Yousuf Shareef, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mulgi No.22-6-178 & 22-6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Claim petitioner/Third party AND
1. Mahender Kumar S/o. Late Jagdish Pershad, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,
2. Pavan Kumar S/o. Late Jagdish Pershad, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business,
Both are R/o.21-2-185, Charkaman, Hyderabad. … Respondents/Respondents/Decree holders
3. B.L. Agarwal S/o. Late Goverdandas, Aged about 76 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.NO.22-6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri M.S. Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC praying the court to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking documents in the interest of justice, stating that at the time of filing of claim petition, he has not filed some crucial documents to prove his case, which were misplaced and traced out recently and some are recent documents and it is just and necessary to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking of the said documents, otherwise he will be put to heavy irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by any means. Hence, this petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner is intending to drag the matter and prays the court to dismiss the petition with costs.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The respondent No.1 herein filed EP.No.7/11 against the respondent No.2 herein and the same is pending as petitioner herein filed claim petition and the claim petition is at the stage of arguments and the claim petitioner filed the present petition to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking documents. The respondents opposed the same.
This court being the trial court is under obligation to dispose of the claim petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence.
In view of the above said reasons, this court is inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give one more opportunity to the petitioner herein.
In the result, the petition is allowed subject to condition that the petitioner herein shall get ready on 17.12.2018 for marking of documents, or else the petition shall stand dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of December, 2018.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2018
E.A.No.22 of 2017 IN
E.A.No.22 of 2011
IN
E.P.No.7 of 2011
IN
R.C.No.423 of 2007
Between:-
Mohammed Samad Shareef, S/o. Late Mohammed Yousuf Shareef, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mulgi No.22-6-178 & 22-6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Claim petitioner/Third party AND
1. Mahender Kumar S/o. Late Jagdish Pershad, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,
2. Pavan Kumar S/o. Late Jagdish Pershad, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business,
Both are R/o.21-2-185, Charkaman, Hyderabad. … Respondents/Respondents/Decree holders
3. B.L. Agarwal S/o. Late Goverdandas, Aged about 76 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.NO.22-6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri M.S. Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC praying the court to recall RW.1 for the purpose of cross examination in the interest of justice stating that the petitioner herein has filed the claim petition against the respondents/decree holder and judgment debtor claiming the tenancy in mulgi NO.22-6-178 and 22- 6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad and the same was posted to 15.12.2016 for cross examination of RW.1. The petitioner further submitted that his previous counsel gave up vakalath due to his personal reasons and he engaged a new advocate to provide assistance in the above matter and on that day his new counsel who was suffering from giddiness problem could not attend the court for cross examination of RW.1 and due to that reason the court was pleased to close and treated the cross examination of Rw.1 as nil and posted the matter for argument and for non representation of non cross examination of RW.1 on 15.12.2016 by his counsel is neither intentional nor wanton, but only due to above said reasons. Hence, this petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner is intending to drag the matter and prays the court to dismiss the petition with costs.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The respondent No.1 herein filed EP.No.7/11 against the respondent No.2 herein and the same is pending as petitioner herein filed claim petition and the claim petition is at the stage of arguments and the claim petitioner filed the present petition to recall RW.1 for the purpose of cross examination. The respondents opposed the same.
This court being the trial court is under obligation to dispose of the claim petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence.
In view of the above said reasons, this court is inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give one more opportunity to the petitioner herein.
In the result, the petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/- to the respondents and cross examine RW.1 on the next date of hearing.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of December, 2018.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2018
E.A.No.20 of 2017 IN
E.A.No.22 of 2011
IN
E.P.No.7 of 2011
IN
R.C.No.423 of 2007
Between:-
Mohammed Samad Shareef, S/o. Late Mohammed Yousuf Shareef, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mulgi No.22-6-178 & 22-6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Claim petitioner/Third party AND
1. Mahender Kumar S/o. Late Jagdish Pershad, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,
2. Pavan Kumar S/o. Late Jagdish Pershad, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business,
Both are R/o.21-2-185, Charkaman, Hyderabad. … Respondents/Respondents/Decree holders
3. B.L. Agarwal S/o. Late Goverdandas, Aged about 76 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.H.NO.22-6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri M.S. Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the documents i.e., original electricity bills with payment receipts issued by APCPDCL and TSSPDCL and the same may be received by condoning the delay if any in filing the same stating that at the time of filing of claim petition, he has filed electricity consumption payment receipts of petition schedule premises, but there are some recent year electricity bills issued by APCPDCL and TSSPDCL which were not available during his cross examination and some old electricity bills were not filed, because they were misplaced with other documents and recently traced out, which goes to the root of his case to prove his tenancy and during his cross examination also the learned counsel for respondent put a question for production of any other documents to prove his tenancy, but the electricity bills were not available at the time of his evidence as they are recent electricity bills obtained subsequently after his evidence. The petitioner herein further submitted that the said documents are just and essential to prove his case. Hence, this petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner is intending to drag the matter and prays the court to dismiss the petition with costs. Heard arguments of both sides. The respondent No.1 herein filed EP.No.7/11 against the respondent No.2 herein and the same is pending as petitioner herein filed claim petition and the claim petition is at the stage of arguments and the claim petitioner filed the present petition to receive the documents. The respondents opposed the same. In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”. In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that: Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”. Mere receiving of documents will not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of documents at the time of cross examine the witness. Further the documents filed by the petitioner are original documents.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the claim petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent have an opportunity to cross examine the witness. In the result, the petition is allowed without costs. The above said documents are ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of December, 2018.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2018
E.A.No.21 of 2017 IN
E.A.No.22 of 2011
IN
E.P.No.7 of 2011
IN
R.C.No.423 of 2007
Between:-
Mohammed Samad Shareef, S/o. Late Mohammed Yousuf Shareef, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mulgi No.22-6-178 & 22-6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Claim petitioner/Third party AND
1. Mahender Kumar S/o. Late Jagdish Pershad, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,
2. Pavan Kumar S/o. Late Jagdish Pershad, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business,
Both are R/o.21-2-185, Charkaman, Hyderabad. … Respondents/Respondents/Decree holders
3. B.L. Agarwal S/o. Late Goverdandas, Aged about 76 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.NO.22-6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri M.S. Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the documents i.e., bill books of the firm i.e., Fashion Corner, for the period of 01.01.2004 to 07.06.2007 and 23.06.2007 to 31.12.2015, Trade license of firm i.e., Fashion Corner dt.27.08.2016 with payment receipt issued by GHMC Hyderabad, Attendance register of employees of the firm i.e., fAshion Corner and purchase bill tax invoice No.6873 dt.01.10.2016 purchase stock of dresses from Badrivishal Textiles Ulhasnagar and the same may be received by condoning the delay if any in filing the same, stating that at the time of filing of claim petition, he has not filed the above said documents which are crucial and were misplaced, traced out recently and also the learned counsel for respondents put a question for production of any other documents to prove his tenancy, but the books were not available at the time of his evidence as they were misplaced and traced out recently. The petitioner herein further submitted that the said documents are just and essential to prove his case. Hence, this petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner is intending to drag the matter and prays the court to dismiss the petition with costs.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The respondent No.1 herein filed EP.No.7/11 against the respondent No.2 herein and the same is pending as petitioner herein filed claim petition and the claim petition is at the stage of arguments and the claim petitioner filed the present petition to receive the documents. The respondents opposed the same.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that: Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
Mere receiving of documents will not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of documents at the time of cross examine the witness. Further the documents filed by the petitioner is original documents.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the claim petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs. The above said documents are ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of December, 2018.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2018
E.A.No.21 of 2018 IN
E.A.No.22 of 2011
IN
E.P.No.7 of 2011
IN
R.C.No.423 of 2007
Between:-
Mohammed Samad Shareef, S/o. Late Mohammed Yousuf Shareef, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Mulgi No.22-6-178 & 22-6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Claim petitioner/Third party AND
1. Mahender Kumar S/o. Late Jagdish Pershad, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,
2. Pavan Kumar S/o. Late Jagdish Pershad, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business,
Both are R/o.21-2-185, Charkaman, Hyderabad. … Respondents/Respondents/Decree holders
3. B.L. Agarwal S/o. Late Goverdandas, Aged about 76 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.NO.22-6-193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri M.S. Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the document i.e., certified copy of order dt.8.6.2018 passed in I.A.NO.52/2013 in RC.No.65 of 2013 on the file of III Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad stating that the petitioner herein filed petition to permit him to deposit rents for the period from September 2010 to February 2013 @ Rs.1000/- per month per floor for thirty months amounting to Rs.60,000/- in respect of mulgi No.22-6-178 and 22-6- 193/4, Pathergatti, Hyderabad and also future rents and also filed I.A.No.52 of 2013 to permit the petition to deposit the rents for the above said period in respect of petition schedule mulgi and the same was allowed on 8.6.2018. Hence this petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that I.A.No.52/2013 is allowed and the petitioner herein is permitted to deposit the rents to the credit of RC.No.65/2013 and it is made clear that the permission to deposit is granted subject to final outcome of result in
RC.No.65/2013 and that too permission was granted and the petition was
considered by the court without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised by them in RC.No.65/2013 and moreover aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent herein preferred rent appeal with delay condone petition under section 5 of the Act and the same is pending before the
Honourable Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad and the
matter is subjudice before the appellate court and interlocutory orders are not taken into consideration unless and until they attained finality. Therefore, the present copy of order is no way helpful to dispose off the claim petition and hence prays this court to dismiss the petition with costs.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The respondent No.1 herein filed EP.No.7/11 against the respondent No.2 herein and the same is pending as petitioner herein filed claim petition and the claim petition is at the stage of arguments and the claim petitioner filed the present petition to receive the above said document. The respondents opposed the same.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that:
Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
Mere receiving of documents will not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of documents at the time of cross examine the witness. Further the document filed by the petitioner is original document.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the claim petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs. The above said document is ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of December, 2018.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao,,
Principal Rent Controller,
FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2018
I.A.No.88 of 2018 IN
R.C.No.30 of 2018
Between:-
Mr Shyam Sunder Agarwal S/o. Late Badrinarayan Agarwal, about 67 years, Occ: Business, Shop No.15-9-487, Mahaboobgunj, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioner/Respondent AND
Shri Naveen Kumar S/o. Mool Shankar, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.H.No.15-6-267/1, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Petitioner
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri Anvesh C. Desai, Advocate for the Petitioner/Respondent and of Sri Harihara Kumar, Advocate for the respondent/petitioner and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Both counsel present as counsel for petitioner not pressed this petition. This petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of October, 2018.
FAC I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao,,
Principal Rent Controller,
FAC I Addl.Rent Controller,
Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2018
I.A.No.89 of 2018 IN
R.C.No.33 of 2018
Between:-
Mr Shyam Sunder Agarwal S/o. Late Badrinarayan Agarwal, about 67 years, Occ: Business, Shop No.15-9-487, Mahaboobgunj, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioner/Respondent AND
Shri Naveen Kumar S/o. Mool Shankar, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.H.No.15-6-267/1, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Petitioner
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri Anvesh C. Desai, Advocate for the Petitioner/Respondent and of Sri Harihara Kumar, Advocate for the respondent/petitioner and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Both counsel present as counsel for petitioner not pressed this petition. This petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of October, 2018.
FAC I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2018
I.A.No.131 of 2017 IN
R.C.No.134 of 2016
Between:-
Radha Bai W/o. Devender, Aged about 71 years, R/o.H.NO.5-9-9/67, Nowbath Pahad, Near Birla Mandir, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioner/Petitioner AND
T. Padma W/o. T. Shankar, Aged 36 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.5-9-9/67, Navbath, Pahad, Near Birla Mandir, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Respondent.
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri K. Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner/Petitioner and of Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate for the respondent/Respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC praying the court to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking of original aadhar card and election card for the purpose of marking as exhibits in RC.No.134/2016, stating that the petitioner has adduced evidence as PW.1 in the above case and at the time of examination her aadhar card and election card were misplaced, as such she could not file the same before the court and recently the same are being traced out, as such it is just and necessary to mark the same as exhibits in the above case. Hence, this petition.
Inspite of giving sufficient time, the respondent failed to file counter, hence right to file counter by the respondent was forfeited on 5.10.2018.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The learned counsel for respondent filed the following citations at the time of arguments.
(i) In D. Nagalakshmi Vs. D. Rosamma and another reported in 2018(6) ALD 309.
(ii) In Vadiraj Nagappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) Vs. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1604.
(iii) In Lakshmi Priya Exports (India) (P) Ltd., Chittoor and others Vs. Ramalingam Mills Ltd., Chitoor reported in 2016(3) ALD 658.
I have gone through the citations, the facts of the above cases are different from present case and not applicable to the present case.
The petitioner herein filed RC against the respondent herein for eviction and the same is coming for petitioner further evidence, at this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petition to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking the above said documents in her evidence.
The learned counsel for petitioner herein filed a memo stating that the original copies of aadhar card and electoral card will produce at the time of evidence.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the claim petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence.
In view of the reasons stated above, this court inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give one more opportunity to the petitioner herein.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of December, 2018.
I ADDL RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC IV Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2018
I.A.No.28 of 2018 IN
R.C.No.204 of 2015
Between:-
1. R. Varadharajan @ Varadaraj S/o. Late V.R.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar, Age: 73 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.T-5, H.NO.11-9-265, Sunshine Apartments, Vijayapuri Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad.
2. R. Senthil, S/o. Varadharajan @ Varadaraj, Age: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.134/3/RT, Flat No.302, Siri Kiran Apartments, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioners/Respondents. AND
1. G.S. Sai Kumar S/o. Late G.N. Srinivas, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee,
2. G. Sunitha W/o. G.S. Sai Kumar, Age about 41 years, Occ: Household,
Both are R/o.H.No.10-3-568, 8/3RT LIG, Vijayanagar colony, Hyderabad.
… Respondents/Petitioners
This petition is coming before me in the presence of D.Y.N.L.N. Charyulu, Advocate for the petitioners/respondents and of Sri P. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for the respondents/petitioners and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed under section 151 CPC praying the court to reopen the petitioners’ evidence for the purpose of summoning the stamp vendor and one Sharwan Kumar to adduce their evidence stating that on the previous date of hearing the said matter was posted for further evidence of the petitioners/respondents and on that day, their counsel is out of station to attend the funeral of his relative and as such he could not appear before this court and they tried to call him, but his phone was also out of reach as he went to his native village due to signal problem, they could not able to contact with him through phone. The petitioners further submitted that on that day this court asked them for any further evidence, but due to old age and lack of knowledge and confusion, the petitioner No.1 herein could not able to answer properly stated that there is no further evidence on their behalf and this court posted the matter for arguments and prays the court to reopen their evidence for the purpose of summoning the stamp vendor of the document i.e., Rs.100/- NJ Stamp vide number BH376461. Hence, this petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioners herein filed petition for reopen of their evidence and summoning the witnesses in respect of details of purchase of said Rs.100/- NJ Stamp paper and the contention of the petitioners is that the said document is purchased by Sri G.S.Sharwan Kumar, who is not a party to the present proceedings. The respondent further submitted that the court rightly did not consider in marking the Xerox copy of the stamp paper and the petitions making attempt to summon stamp vendor and intend to prove that Sri G.S. Sharwan Kumar got purchased the said stamp paper and further submitted that the proving of purchase of stamp paper is nothing to do with the present case and that when admittedly the said document is Xerox in nature and no signatures on the said document and that is not legally enforceable and that the petitioners herein filed present petition only to drag the matter. Hence, prays this court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The respondents herein filed the present RC against the petitioners herein for eviction and the same is coming for arguments and at the stage of arguments, the petitioners herein filed this present petition to summon the stamp vendor.
Perused the record and petition affidavit and after perusal of the record, this court found that petitioners herein have given sufficient time to lead their evidence and after giving sufficient time only the evidence of petitioners herein is closed and the matter is posted for arguments. At the stage of arguments, the petitioners herein filed this present petition. The above said document is not relevant and it is only Xerox in nature and there are no signatures on the said document and it is not legally enforceable and the purchaser of the stamp paper G.S.Shrawan Kumar also not a party to the case and this court is not satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the petitioners herein and this court found no merits in the present petition.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, this petition is dismissed.
In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 5th day of December, 2018.
FAC IV ADDL RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC IV Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2018
I.A.No.29 of 2018 IN
R.C.No.204 of 2015
Between:-
1. R. Varadharajan @ Varadaraj S/o. Late V.R.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar, Age: 73 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.T-5, H.NO.11-9-265, Sunshine Apartments, Vijayapuri Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad.
2. R. Senthil, S/o. Varadharajan @ Varadaraj, Age: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.134/3/RT,
Flat No.302, Siri Kiran Apartments, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioners/Respondents. AND
1. G.S. Sai Kumar S/o. Late G.N. Srinivas, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee,
2. G. Sunitha W/o. G.S. Sai Kumar, Age about 41 years, Occ: Household,
Both are R/o.H.No.10-3-568, 8/3RT LIG, Vijayanagar colony, Hyderabad.
… Respondents/Petitioners
This petition is coming before me in the presence of D.Y.N.L.N. Charyulu, Advocate for the petitioners/respondents and of Sri P. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for the respondents/petitioners and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed under Order XVI Rules 7 and 7A CPC read with section 151 CPC praying the court to summon the stamp vendor of the document i.e., Xerox copy of settlement cum undertaking which is prepared under Rs.100/- NJ Stamp vide No.BH376461 dt.03.04.2014, stating that he filed the said document before this court which is purchased by one GS Sharwan Kumar who is none other than the brother of the respondent No.1 and brothers of the respondent No.1 with the consent of respondents/petitioners and they mentioned in the said agreement that the petition schedule premises including the area of the house of the property is in dilapidated condition and their family members are agreed to enter into a development agreement for construction of new building and approached to the developers with the said proposal and in the said premises is having three shops and the tenants agreed to vacate the premises and requested to allot the shops after construction of new building with fresh terms and conditions of rental agreement and the said proposal was accepted by himself and other tenants. The petitioner further submitted that the respondent in the petition stated that they required the said premises for their personal occupation and to prove the same, he filed Xerox copy of the said stamp paper and the court refused to mark the same as an exhibit and the respondents/petitioners denied the contents of the said document and also denied the purchase of the said document by the brother of the respondent No.1.
The petitioner further submitted that he wants to produce the record pertains to the stamp paper to prove the said fact that the brother of the respondent No.1 purchased Rs.100/- NJ Stamp in his name and the brother of the respondent No.1 with the consent of respondents/petitioners prepared the said document, but they refused the same. Hence, this petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioners herein filed petition for reopen of their evidence and summoning the witness in respect of details of purchase of said Rs.100/- NJ Stamp paper and the contention of the petitioners is that the said document is purchased by Sri G.S.Sharwan Kumar, who is not a party to the present proceedings. The respondent further submitted that the court rightly did not consider in marking the Xerox copy of the stamp paper and the petitions making attempt to summon stamp vendor and intend to prove that Sri G.S. Sharwan Kumar got purchased the said stamp paper and further submitted that the proving of purchase of stamp paper is nothing to do with the present case and that when admittedly the said document is Xerox in nature and no signatures on the said document and that is not legally enforceable and that the petitioners herein filed present petition only to drag the matter. Hence, prays this court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The respondents herein filed the present RC against the petitioners herein for eviction and the same is coming for arguments and at the stage of arguments, the petitioners herein filed this present petition to summon the stamp vendor.
Perused the record and petition affidavit and after perusal of the record, this court found that petitioners herein have given sufficient time to lead their evidence and after giving sufficient time only the evidence of petitioners herein is closed and the matter is posted for arguments. At the stage of arguments, the petitioners herein filed this present petition. The above said document is not relevant and it is only Xerox in nature and there are no signatures on the said document and it is not legally enforceable and the purchaser of the stamp paper G.S.Shrawan Kumar also not a party to the case and this court is not satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the petitioners herein and this court found no merits in the present petition.
Hence, in view of the above said discussion, the petition is dismissed.
In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 5th day of December, 2018.
FAC IV ADDL RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 9th day of November, 2018
I.A.No.110 of 2018 IN
R.C.No.280 of 2013
Between:-
Satish Chand Jaiswal S/o. Late Shankar Lal Jaiswal, Age 64 years, Occ: Business, 4-4-268, Opposite Andhra Bank, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Respondent. AND 1.Vinod Kumar Yadav S/o. Prem lal Yadav, Age: 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.14-4-34, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
2. Smt. Dhanvanti Yadav W/o. Sri Kishore Lal Yadav, Age: 43 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.14-4-68/1, Baidar Wadi, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
… Respondents/Petitioners
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Smt. Pratima Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner/respondent and of Sri Ramjoshi, Advocate for the respondents/petitioners and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 25 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act praying the court to issue summons to Smt. Dhanvanti Yadav W/o. Sri Kishore Lal Yadav, Age: 43 years, occ: Business, R/o. 14-4-68/1, Baidar Wadi, Begum Bazaar, Hyderabad, who is also petitioner No.2 in the main RC, stating that he intends to examine the above said person to know the real truth involved in the case. Hence, this petition.
The respondents filed counter stating that the present petition filed only to drag the matter and prays the court to dismiss the petition with costs.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The respondents/petitioners herein filed the RC against the petitioner/respondent herein for eviction and the same is coming for further evidence of petitioner/respondent. At this stage, the petitioners/respondents herein filed the present petition to summon Smt. Dhanvanti Yadav W/o. Sri Kishore Lal Yadav, Age: 43 years, occ: Business, R/o. 14-4-68/1, Baidar Wadi, Begum Bazaar, Hyderabad. The learned counsel for respondents/petitioners filed counter and objected for the same.
In view of the reasons stated above, this court is inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give one more opportunity to the petitioner herein to prove his contention and no prejudice will be caused to the respondent in allowing the petition. Further, this court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the main RC on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs. Issue summons to Smt. Dhanvanti Yadav W/o. Sri Kishore Lal Yadav, Age: 43 years, occ: Business, R/o. 14-4-68/1, Baidar Wadi, Begum Bazaar, Hyderabad on payment of process.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 9th day of November, 2018.
I ADDL RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 9th day of November, 2018
I.A.No.109 of 2018 IN
R.C.No.280 of 2013
Between:-
Satish Chand Jaiswal S/o. Late Shankar Lal Jaiswal, Age 64 years, Occ: Business, 4-4-268, Opposite Andhra Bank, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Respondent. AND 1.Vinod Kumar Yadav S/o. Prem lal Yadav, Age: 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.14-4-34, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
2. Smt. Dhanvanti Yadav W/o. Sri Kishore Lal Yadav, Age: 43 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.14-4-68/1, Baidar Wadi, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
… Respondents/Petitioners
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Smt. Pratima Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner/respondent and of Sri Ramjoshi, Advocate for the respondents/petitioners and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC praying the court to reopen the petitioner’s side evidence to recall PW.1 to stand for further cross examination in the interest of justice, stating that the respondent/petitioner herein with whom there exist no jural relationship of landlord and tenant over the petition schedule property has falsely claimed to have purchased the property from PW.2. It is the case of this petitioner that the Rent Control Act is not applicable and the main petition is to be dismissed, even the vendor of the respondent/petitioner herein has no right, title or interest vested and was collecting illegally the mamool on the Government land on which the petition schedule property exists and are falsely claiming the rent on it. The respondents/petitioners herein are not entitled for any rent muchless the rent sought nor was paid any amount any time as there exist no jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The Government has rejected the claim made by the respondents/petitioners over the land on which the petition schedule property also exists. There are subsequent developments which has crept in and came to the knowledge, hence it is just and necessary to get reopen the evidence of the respondent/petition side herein, thereby recall PW.1 for further cross examination. Hence, this petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner is intending to drag the matter and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The respondents/petitioners herein filed the RC against the petitioner/respondent herein for eviction and the same is coming for further evidence of petitioner/respondent. At this stage, the petitioners/respondents herein filed the present petition to recall PW.1 for the purpose of further cross examination of PW.1. The respondents opposed the same.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the main RC on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. In view of the above said reasons, this court is inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give one more opportunity to the petitioner herein.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 9th day of November, 2018.
I ADDL RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2018
I.A.No.114 of 2018 IN
R.C.No.126 of 2012
Between:-
Mohammed Zakiuddin S/o. Late Mohd Jamaluddin, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, Tenant in Mulgi NO.17-6-382, Dabeerpura, Opp: ACP office, Meerchowk, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Respondent. AND
1. Smt. Saleema Begum W/o. Mohd Faiz, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Household,
2. Mr. Mohd Maqbool S/o. Mohd Faiz, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business,
3. Mr. Mohd Mahmood S/o. Mohd Faiz, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Business,
4. Mr. Mohd Masood S/o. Mohd Faiz, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business,
5. Mr. Mohd Younus S/o. Mohd Faiz, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Business,
All are R/o. H.No.17-6-176, Outside Dabeerpura, Hyderabad.
… Respondents/Petitioners
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri R.A. Achuthanand, Advocate for the petitioner/respondent and of Sri B. Preetham Singh, Advocate for the respondents/petitioners and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by petitioner U/o Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the documents I.e., copy of rental receipts dated 01-11-2009 along with the petition of the court endorsement. The petitioner, who is the respondent in the main RC filed petition stating that he filed original receipts pertains to the month of June 2009 as well as the receipts mentioned the particulars of the rents upto October 2009 was received by Smt. Meena Bhai in OS no.3009 of 2009 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and he filed a petition before II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad for return of the documents i.e., the documents as stated supra, the Hon'ble court has returned the petition with an endorsement that the said documents were destructed on 18-08- 2018 as per destruction rule part II, part III and he filed the original petition along with the endorsement from the court. Hence this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner is intending to drag the matter and the Xerox copy of receipts dated 01-11-2009 can not be taken as secondary evidence and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The respondent filed RC against the petitioner herein for eviction and the same is coming for further evidence of petitioner. At this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petition to receive the above said documents. The respondent opposed the same.
This court relied on the following decisions in Nurukurthi
Solman Raju Vs. Nurukurthi Veera Lakshmi reported in 2017(5) ALT and in U.Sree Vs. U Srinivas reported in 2013(2) SCC 114 wherein in the above judgements, the Hon'ble courts held that:
“A photostat copy is in admissible and cannot be received in evidence as secondary evidence.”
The main petition is at the stage of petitioner further evidence and main petition is pertaining to the year 2012. Therefore, this court opines that the petitioner might have filed the present petition only with an intention to drag on the proceedings. Hence, there are no merits in this petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of November, 2018.
I ADDL RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt. Salma Fatima, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2018
I.A.No.114 of 2018 IN
R.C.No.126 of 2012
Between:-
Mohammed Zakiuddin S/o. Late Mohd Jamaluddin, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, Tenant in Mulgi NO.17-6-382, Dabeerpura, Opp: ACP office, Meerchowk, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Respondent. AND
1. Smt. Saleema Begum W/o. Mohd Faiz, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Household,
2. Mr. Mohd Maqbool S/o. Mohd Faiz, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business,
3. Mr. Mohd Mahmood S/o. Mohd Faiz, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Business,
4. Mr. Mohd Masood S/o. Mohd Faiz, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business,
5. Mr. Mohd Younus S/o. Mohd Faiz, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Business,
All are R/o. H.No.17-6-176, Outside Dabeerpura, Hyderabad.
… Respondents/Petitioners
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri R.A. Achuthanand, Advocate for the petitioner/respondent and of Sri B. Preetham Singh, Advocate for the respondents/petitioners and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by petitioner Under order 18, Rule 17
R/W 151 CPC praying the court to recall RW1 for the purpose of marking of documents I.e., copy of rental receipts dated 01-11-2009 along with the petition of the court endorsement. The petitioner, who is the respondent in the main RC filed petition stating that he filed original receipts pertains to the month of June 2009 as well as the receipts mentioned the particulars of the rents upto October 2009 was received by Smt. Meena Bhai in OS no.3009 of 2009 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and he filed a petition before II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad for return of the documents i.e., the documents as stated supra, the Hon'ble court has returned the petition with an endorsement that the said documents were destructed on 18-08- 2018 as per destruction rule part II, part III and he filed the original petition along with the endorsement from the court. Hence this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner is intending to drag the matter and the Xerox copy of receipts dated 01-11-2009 can not be taken as secondary evidence and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The respondent filed RC against the petitioner herein for eviction and the same is coming for further evidence of petitioner. At this stage the petitioner herein filed the present petition to recall RW1 for the purpose of marking the above said documents. The respondent opposed the same.
This court relied on the following decisions in Nurukurthi
Solman Raju Vs. Nurukurthi Veera Lakshmi reported in 2017(5) ALT and in U.Sree Vs. U Srinivas reported in 2013(2) SCC 114 wherein in the above judgements, the Hon'ble courts held that:
“A photostat copy is in admissible and cannot be received in evidence as secondary evidence.”
The main petition is at the stage of petitioner further evidence and main petition is pertaining to the year 2011. Therefore, this court opines that the petitioner might have filed the present petition only with an intention to drag on the proceedings. Hence, there are no merits in this petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of November, 2018.
I ADDL RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC IV Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2018
I.A.No.2 of 2018 IN
O.S.No.1162 of 2007
Between:-
Nawab Mir Osman Ali Khan S/o. Late Nawab Zulfekhar JahBahadur, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.3-4-354, Barketpura, Opp: REddy Womens College, Barketpura, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad Rep. by his GPA Mohammed Abdus Samad S/o. Mohammed Ayub, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.16-2-867/A/2, Jeevanyarjung Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Proposed defendant No.26. AND
1. Syed Ibrahim Quadri S/o. Syed Ghouse Quadri, Aged about 95 years, R/o.H.No.18-4-280/B/A2/1/B1, Khajanagar, Khajapahadi, Old Tadbund, Hyderabad. (died per LRs No.2 to 6)
2. Syed Saleem Quadri S/o. Late Syed Ibrahim Quadri, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.19-4-279/S/12/1, Saleheen Colony NS Kunta, Tadbund, Hyderabad.
3. Jafferunnisa Parveen D/o. Late Syed Ibrahim Quadri, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Household,
4. Rahmathunnisa Nasreen D/o. Late Syed Ibrahim Quadri, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Household,
Both are R/o.H.No.19-4-279/S/9, Saleheen Colony, NS Kunta, Tadbun, Hyderabad.
5. Kulsumunnisa Zareen D/o. Late Syed Ibrahim Quadri, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Household, R/o.HBR Layout, Old Madras Highway, Bangalore, Karnataka State
6. Rafeequinnissa Begum W/o. Late Syed Ibrahim Quadri, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.19-4-279/S/13/1, Saleheen Colony, NS Kunta, Tadbund, Hyderabad.
…Respondents/plaintiffs 7 Kamran Mirza S/o. A. Samad, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, 8 Nariman Mirza S/o. A. Samad, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, 9 Humayun Khanam D/.o. A. Samad, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Household, 10Nausherwan Mirza S/o. A. Samad, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, All are R/o.6-3-577, Grace Villa, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.
11. Surendernath Singh S/o. Ranjeeth Singh Aged about 68 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.1-22, Peerzadiguda, Uppal Municipality, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
12. Habid Moinuddin S/o. Gulam Moinuddin, Aged about 69 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-73, Peerzadiguda, Uppal Municipality Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
13. Smt. Shah Inayath Begum W/o. Abubuddin, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-8-419, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.
14. Smt. Riaz Begum W/o. Mohd Hussain, Aged about 69 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-84, Peerzadiguda, Uppal Municipality, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
15. B. Rajaiah S/o. Narasimha, Aged about 79 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.1-24, Medipally Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
16. P.N. Yadav S/o. Marchu Yadav, Aged about 69 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.21-130, Chilknagar, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
17. Shabir Khan S/o. Moulan Khan, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-1, Peerzdiguda, Uppal Municipality, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
18. Abdul Alam Syed Moosa Athan Bhai
S/o. SyedMahamood Farooq Miya, Aged about 69 years, occ: Landlord, R/o.H.No.16-3-949, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.
19. Chama Pratap Reddy S/o. Yadagiri Reddy, Aged about 79 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o.H.No.16-2-668/C, Near Police Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
20. Syed Saleemuddin S/o. Syed Moinuddin Ahmed, aged about 73 years, Occ; Business, R/o.H.No.16-2-668/C, Near Police Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
21. Diraj S/o. Babu Prasad, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.5-1-964/1, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.
22. Bair Bhaskar S/o. Ramachandraiah, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Velugupalli, Annaram Village, Thungaturthi Mandal, Nalgonda district.
23. Vadla Kond Manikyam S/o. Chandraiah, Aged about 79 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Velugupalli, Annaram village, Thungaturthi Mandal, Nalgonda district.
24. Baja Kishan S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. Velugupalli, Annaram Village, Thungaturthi Mandal, Nalgonda district.
25. K. Venkat Narayana S/o. K. Venkaiah, Aged about 79 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Settipalli village, Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar district.
26. Mir Mohamood Ali S/o. Mir Kazim Ali, Aged about 66 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.20-1-482, Khaja Pahadi Tadban, Hyderabad.
27. Mohd Khaja Miyan S/o. Mohd Moinuddin Aged about 68 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-4-305/5/1, Bolakpur, Secunderabad.
28. Shaik Lateef S/o. Shaik Imam, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o. Balanagar, Hyderabad.
29. Shaik Akbar S/o. Shaik Imam, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.3-22, Hakeempet, Secunderabad.
30. G Narsimha Reddy S/o. Venkat Narayana Reddy, Aged about 80 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Vallabpur village, Warangal Mandal & District.
31. K. Sreram Reddy S/o. Raji Reddy, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o.H.NO.6-3-27, Shivarampally village, Rajendranagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
.. Respondents/Defendants
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Muhammad Veqar Hussain, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Venkat Srinvias, Advcoate for respondents No.2 to 6 and of Smt. K. Pallavi, Advocate for the respondents No.7 to 10 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the GPA holder of the proposed defendant No.26 under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice read with section 151 CPC praying the court to permit the GPA holder of the petitioner/proposed defendant NO.26, Mohammed Abdus Samad S/o. Mohammed Ayub, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.16-2-867/A/2, Jeevanyarjung Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad to act on his behalf as his lawful attorney in the above suit stating that the petitioner/proposed defendant No.26 is unable to look after the affairs of suit schedule property and its related cases personally, as such the proposed defendant NO.26 has appointed him as his lawful attorney vide GPA Dt.05.08.2017 executed at Hyderabad to act on his behalf and the said GPA is still subsisting. Hence, this petition.
The respondents No.2 to 10 filed counter denying the petition averments stating that Nawab Mir Osman Ali Khan represented by his GPA holder filed petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as defendant No.26 in the suit and the same is not maintainable and if he is so much interest to implead himself in the litigation, subject to following due process of law and implead petitioner either support the case of plaintiff or defendant, but cannot raise a different prayer of his own, since it becomes beyond the scope of suit prayer and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments on either side.
The respondent No.1(died per Lrs) who are respondents No.2 to 6 herein filed the suit against the respondents No.7 to 31 for cancellation of registered sale deed dt.20.08.1963 and the same is coming for marking of documents through PW.1.
Now the petitioner herein has filed the present petition to permit his GPA holder, to act on his behalf. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the same.
The petitioner has filed original General power of attorney. In view of the reasons mentioned in the petition, I am inclined to allow this petition and General Power of Attorney holder is permitted to represent the petitioner herein in the main suit. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the GPA is permitted to represent on behalf of the petitioner herein.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 14th day of August, 2018.
FAC IV ADDL RENT
CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2018
I.A.No. 250 of 2016
IN
R.C.No.251 of 2015
Between: Vimal Sagar W/o. Manik Rao, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o.14-11-1055, Shanaz Gunj, Ghoda Ki Khabar, Nampally,
Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. .. Petitioner/Respondent
A n d
1. Subash Kapoor S/o. Late Bankat Pershad, Aged about 63 years, occ: Business, R/o.14-11-1060, Beerbanbagh, Shahinayathgunj, Hyderabad.
2. Sudershan Raj S/o. Late Bankat Pershad, Aged about 66 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o.4-5-888, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. .. Respondents/petitioners
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Chandra Shekar, Advocate for petitioner and of
Sri Vijay Pissay, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 5 of Limitation Act read with section 151 CPC praying the court to condone the delay of 345 days in filing the petition for setting aside ex-parte orders dt.29.12.2015 stating that he came to know about filing of above case when she received summons in EP.5/2016 and on enquiry she came to know that the respondents obtained ex-party judgment and decree against her, but in fact no such summons served upon her at any point of time and the bailiff has obtained signatures of her son whereas she has got no sons which clearly shows that the said report is not correct and is done in collusion with the respondent and by managing the post man to get the endorsement as refused, but at no point of time any postman visited to her residence nor ever she refused to receive any notice. Due to high diabetes and old age the petitioner admitted in the hospital and as such she has no knowledge of the proceedings and if she evicted from the schedule premises without giving any opportunity to contest the case, she will be put to great prejudice and hardship. Hence, the petition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that when the court bailiff went to execute the warrant of eviction, the petitioner resisted the same and meanwhile the petitioner herein filed vakalat in EP.5/2016 and she is contesting the same and she is aware of all the proceedings and the petitioner has got no diseases and no proof is filed to substantiate the same and the petitioner cannot stay in the petition schedule premises without paying the rents that the delay of 345 days in filing petition is not properly explained and o sufficient cause is shown why the petition is filed with delay of 345 days and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments.
The respondents herein filed RC.251/2015 against the petitioner herein for eviction and the petitioner herein called absent and set exparte and the court passed the exparte orders on 29.12.2015 and thereafter the respondents herein filed EP and now the petitioner filed the present petition to set aside the exparte order dt.29.12.2015 by condoning the delay of 345 days and the respondents opposed the same.
On considering the contents of petition affidavit, submission of both the learned counsels, this court is satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the petitioner and further thus being trial court, is under obligation to dispose of the matter on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties.
In view of the reasons stated above, this court inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give one more opportunity to the petitioner. No loss or injury would be caused to the respondents even if the petition is allowed.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 14th day of August, 2018.
FAC I ADDL RENT
CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2018
I.A.No. 155 of 2018
IN
R.C.No.260 of 2012
Between: Smt. Ahmadi Begum W/o Mohd Qutubuddin rep. by her GPA holder Nayeemuddin, S/o. MOhd Qutubuddin, Aged 44 years, R/o.11-1-158, Agapura, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
Shaik Masood Ali S/o. Ahmad Ali, Aged 38 years, Occ: Business,
Carrying in the mulgi bearing municipal No.5-7-560, Nampally, Hyderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Damodar Mundar, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Khaja Moizuddin, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the GPA holder of the petitioner under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the certified copy of GPA dt.07.03.2013 thereby condone the delay in filing the same by stating that he was examined as PW.1 and also obtained the permission from the this court filing the petition under Rule 32 of CRP with copy of GPA and she was under the impression that the GPA is marked and recently her counsel noticed that the GPA is not marked as it is Xerox copy and as such the petitioner has obtained the certified copy of GPA and filed the same herewith. Hence, this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that on perusal of alleged GPA dt.07.03.2013 is not pertaining to the present case because there is no case number, mulgi number and name of the court and there is no proof showing the alleged GPA is subsisting as on today and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The petitioner filed RC against the respondent herein for eviction and the same is coming for further evidence of respondent. At this stage the GPA holder of the petitioner filed the present petition to receive the above said document. The respondent opposed the same.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that:
Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
Mere receiving of document will not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of document at the time of cross examination of the witness. Further the document filed by the petitioner is certified copy of GPA.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the main RC on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the result, the petition is allowed. The above said document is ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of August, 2018.
PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2018
I.A.No. 137 of 2018
IN
R.C.No.260 of 2012
Between: Smt. Ahmadi Begum W/o Mohd Qutubuddin rep. by her GPA holder Nayeemuddin, S/o. MOhd Qutubuddin, Aged 44 years, R/o.11-1-158, Agapura, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
Shaik Masood Ali S/o. Ahmad Ali, Aged 38 years, Occ: Business, Carrying in the mulgi bearing municipal No.5-7-560, Nampally, Hyderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Damodar Mundar, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Khaja Moizuddin, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the GPA holder of the petitioner under section 151 CPC praying the court to reopen the matter for the purpose of marking GPA through PW.1 stating that he was examined as PW.1 and also obtained the permission from this court by filing the petition under Rule 32 of CRP with copy of GPA and she was under the impression that the GPA is marked and recently her counsel noticed that the GPA is not marked as it is Xerox copy and as such the petitioner has obtained the certified copy of GPA and filed the same herewith. Hence, this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the GPA is not at all maintainable and the RC was posted for orders on 09.08.2018 and on the same day the petitioner filed the present petition is filed only mechanically without any reason and there is no cogent and valid reasons assigned in the affidavit and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The petitioner filed RC against the respondent herein for eviction and the same is coming for arguments. At this stage the GPA holder of the petitioner filed the present petition to reopen the matter for the purpose of marking document i.e., GPA. The respondent opposed the same.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the main RC on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent have an opportunity to cross examine the witness. In view of the above said reasons, this court is inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give one more opportunity to the petitioner.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of August, 2018.
PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2018
I.A.No. 138 of 2018
IN
R.C.No.260 of 2012
Between: Smt. Ahmadi Begum W/o Mohd Qutubuddin rep. by her GPA holder Nayeemuddin, S/o. MOhd Qutubuddin, Aged 44 years, R/o.11-1-158, Agapura, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
Shaik Masood Ali S/o. Ahmad Ali, Aged 38 years, Occ: Business, Carrying in the mulgi bearing municipal No.5-7-560, Nampally, Hyderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Damodar Mundar, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Khaja Moizuddin, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the GPA holder of the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC praying the court recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking GPA stating that she was examined as PW.1 and also obtained the permission from this court by filing the petition under Rule 32 of CRP with copy of GPA and he was under the impression that the GPA is marked and recently her counsel noticed that the GPA is not marked as it is Xerox copy and as such the petitioner has obtained the certified copy of GPA and filed the same herewith. Hence, this petition.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the GPA is not at all maintainable and the RC was posted for orders on 09.08.2018 and on the same day the petitioner filed the present petition is filed only mechanically without any reason and there is no cogent and valid reasons assigned in the affidavit and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments of both sides.
The petitioner filed RC against the respondent herein for eviction and the same is coming for arguments. At this stage the GPA holder of the petitioner filed the present petition to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking document i.e., GPA. The respondent opposed the same.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the main RC on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent have an opportunity to cross examine the witness. In view of the above said reasons, this court is inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give one more opportunity to the petitioner.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of August, 2018.
PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2018
I.A.No. 61 of 2018
IN
R.C.No.46 of 2016
Between: Smt. K. Koushaliya W/o. Late Sattaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Household, R/o.16-11-5/19, Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhanagar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Respondent
A n d
1. V. Kalavathi W/o. V. Dayanand Aged about 61 years, Occ: Housewife,
2. V. Shailesh Kumar S/o. V. Dayanand, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Service, Both are R/o.H.No.22-1-502, Sultanpura, Chaderghat, Hyderabad. .. Respondents/Petitioners
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri J. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri V. Dayanand, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 5 of Limitation
Act read with section 151 CPC praying the court to condone the delay of 645 days in filing set aside petition stating that due to old age and health problem, she could not appear before the court and court passed exparte order on 20.06.2016 in RC.NO.46/2016 and prays the court to set aside the exparte orders dt.20.06.2016 in the above said RC by condoning the delay of 645 days. Hence, thepetition.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that after taking possession of the premises, the petitioner became wicked and malafide and lost her conscience on the provocation and with the instigation of her daughters and others filed the present petition and has not explained any proper reason much less cogent reasons for inordinate delay in filing the petition to set aside the orders in RC.NO.46 of 2016 dt.20.06.2016 and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard arguments.
The respondents herein filed RC.46 of 2016 against the petitioner herein for eviction and the petitioner herein called absent and set exparte and the court passed the exparte orders on 20.06.2016 and thereafter the respondents herein filed EP and now the petitioner filed the present petition to set aside the exparte order dt.20.06.2016 by condoning the delay of 645 days and the respondents opposed the same.
On considering the contents of petition affidavit, submission of both the learned counsels, this court is satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the petitioner and further thus being trial court, is under obligation to dispose of the matter on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties.
In view of the reasons stated above, this court inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give one more opportunity to the petitioner. No loss or injury would be caused to the respondent even if the petition is allowed.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 10th day of July, 2018.
PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of March, 2018
E.P. No.20 of 2016
IN
R.C.No.276 of 2014
Between: Smt. Faheema Parveen W/o. Mohd Khaja Fariduddin,
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o.1-1-379/204/1, Ashoknagar X Roads, Hyderabad. …. Decree holder/Petitioner
And
1. Mohd Muner S/o Not known, age: Major, Occ: Buisness, R/o. H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
2. Zafar Ali Baig S/o. Late Faree Ali Baig, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Service, R/o.H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
3. Qauisar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 50 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. H.No.6-2-112, Bistiwada, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.
4. Anwar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, aged about 48 years, Occ: Pvt service, R/o.H.No.9-10-68/A/40/4, Reshambagh, Golconda, Hyderabad.
5. Mazhar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-210/2/V, st.No.2 Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.
6. Smt. Rafat Salma W/o. Mohd Nizamuddin, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Husewife, R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
7. Ms. Sabeha Fareed D/o. Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 33 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o.C/o.Mohd Nizamuddin, H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad.
8. Smt. Nomina Fareed W/o. Md. Anwarullaha Asif Aged 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.2-1-568/9, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.
9. Afroz Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged 28 years, Occ: Student, R/o.C/o.Smt. Rafat Salma R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
Judgment debtors/Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Sopan Rao Patil, Advocate for decree holder/petitioner and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the judgment debtors/respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Judgment debtor filed memo stating that aggrieved by dismissal order, the judgment debtor/respondent intends to prefer revision before
Honourable High Court. Hence, it is prayed that the above EP may be
posted after two weeks enabling to take steps.
Decree holder filed memo stating that in the EP, possession was delivered to decree holder as per the warrant issued by this court, as such sought to terminate the EP.
Perused the record, bailiff report and the bailiff report discloses that “as per the court order, he along with decree holder went to the shop bearing No.1-1-18/210, TRT No.168, Jawahar Nagar, RTC X Road, Hyderabad at 1.30 noon and at that time judgment debtor No.1 present and he showed the warrant to him and asked him to vacate the shop, on which judgment debtor No.1 accepted and vacated the shop by taking away all his articles and signed on the warrant and the same was done in the presence of two witnesses, warrant executed”.
Hence, basing on the bailiff report, this court has no hesitation to terminate the EP, since the warrant executed. EP is terminated.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of March, 2018.
FAC I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of March, 2018
E.P. No.21 of 2016
IN
R.C.No.277 of 2014
Between: Smt. Faheema Parveen W/o. Mohd Khaja Fariduddin, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o.1-1-379/204/1, Ashoknagar X Roads, Hyderabad. …. D ecree holder/Petitioner
And
1. Yesu Ratnam S/o Not known, age: Major, Occ: Buisness, R/o. H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
2. Zafar Ali Baig S/o. Late Faree Ali Baig, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Service, R/o.H.No.1-1-18/210,
TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
3. Qauisar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 50 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. H.No.6-2-112, Bistiwada, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.
4. Anwar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, aged about 48 years, Occ: Pvt service, R/o.H.No.9-10-68/A/40/4, Reshambagh, Golconda, Hyderabad.
5. Mazhar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-210/2/V, st.No.2 Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.
6. Smt. Rafat Salma W/o. Mohd Nizamuddin, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Husewife, R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
7. Ms. Sabeha Fareed D/o. Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 33 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o.C/o.Mohd Nizamuddin, H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad.
8. Smt. Nomina Fareed W/o. Md. Anwarullaha Asif Aged 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.2-1-568/9, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.
9. Afroz Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged 28 years, Occ: Student, R/o.C/o.Smt. Rafat Salma R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
.. Judgment debtors/Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Sopan Rao Patil, Advocate for decree holder/petitioner and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the judgment debtors/respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Judgment debtor filed memo stating that aggrieved by dismissal order, the judgment debtor/respondent intends to prefer revision before
Honourable High Court. Hence, it is prayed that the above EP may be
posted after two weeks enabling to take steps.
Decree holder filed memo stating that in the EP, possession was delivered to decree holder as per the warrant issued by this court, as such sought to terminate the EP.
Perused the record, bailiff report and the bailiff report discloses that “as per the court order, he along with decree holder went to the shop bearing No.1-1-18/210, TRT No.168, Jawahar Nagar, RTC X Road, Hyderabad at 1.30 noon and at that time judgment debtor No.1 present and he showed the warrant to him and asked him to vacate the shop, on which judgment debtor No.1 accepted and vacated the shop by taking away all his articles and signed on the warrant and the same was done in the presence of two witnesses, warrant executed”.
Hence, basing on the bailiff report, this court has no hesitation to terminate the EP, since the warrant executed. EP is terminated.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of March, 2018.
FAC I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 1st day of May, 2018.
E.P.No.24 of 2016
IN
R.C.No.128 of 2016
Between:
1. Mohd Mustafa Nawaz Khan S/o Late Mohd Ali Nawaz Khan, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Business, R/o.23-1-783/1, Moghulpura, Hyderabad. Presently at H.No.10-5-41/4, Masabtank, Hyderabad.
2. Mohd Ahmed S/o. Late Mohd Khursheed, Aged 41 years, Occ: Business and GPA holder of Mohd Mustafa Nawaz Khan, R/o. 13-01-1233/249/1/A, Natraj Nagar, Jhera, Hyderabad.
… Decree holders.
A n d
1. Smt. S.K. Fathima Begum W/o. S.K. Momin Hussain, Aged about 39 years, occ: Labour Contractor, C/o. Sri Mohd Mustafa Nawaz Khan, H.No.10-5-41/4, Masabtank, Hyderabad.
2. Smt. P. Mamatha W/o. P. Seshu, Aged about 24 years, Occ: Labour, C/o. Sri Mohd Mustafa Nawaz Khan, H.No.10-5-41/4, Masabtank, Hyderabad.
3. Smt. B. Renuka W/o. Yadaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Labour C/o. Sri Mohd Mustafa Nawaz Khan, H.No.10-5-41/4, Masabtank, Hyderabad.
4. Smt. Chandrakala W/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Labour, C/o. Sri Mohd Mustafa Nawaz Khan, H.No.10-5-41/4, Masabtank, Hyderabad.
5. Smt. Anjamma W/o. Giridas, aged about 50 years, Occ: Labour, C/o. Sri Mohd Mustafa Nawaz Khan, H.No.10-5-41/4, Masabtank, Hyderabad.
6. Smt. Maniamma W/o. Ramulu, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Labour, C/o. Sri Mohd Mustafa Nawaz Khan, H.No.10-5-41/4, Masabtank, Hyderabad.
…Judgment Debtors.
This petition is coming before me on 01.05.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Vishwanath Reddy, Counsel for Decree holders and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following;
Docket Order, Dt:01-05-2018
EA.No.4/17 is allowed, hence, this E.P. is dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of May, 2018.
FAC I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC IV Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2018
I.A.No. 129 of 2017
IN
R.C.No.379 of 2012
Between: Khaja Lateefuddin S/o. Mohd Abbas, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.12-2-790/66-A, Ayodhya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
Sham Kumar S/o. Late Ghisa Ram, Occ: Business, R/o C/o Mulgi No.6, Premises No.5-4-154, Lateef Complex, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Osman Shaheed Advocate for petitioner and of Sri N Bhaskar Rao, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the petitioners in the main RC under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules read with section 151 CPC praying the court to receive the certified copies of rental deeds dt.05.08.203 respectively stating that he want to file the certified copy of rental deeds dt.05.08.2003 in favour of Sham Kumar and 05.08.2003 in favor of Girish Kumar, which would prove that there is jural relationship between himself and respondent and it is just and necessary to recall PW.1 by reopening the matter.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the above said documents are irrelevant to the present case and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The petitioner herein filed the RC against the respondent herein for eviction and the same is coming for further evidence of the respondent. At this stage the petitioner filed the present petition under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules to receive the above said documents stating that they would prove that there is jural relationship between himself and respondent. The respondent opposed the same.
Merits and demerits of the document sought to be received cannot be seen at this stage in this application. Receiving of document is different from that of the document admitted into evidence.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that:
Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
The documents filed by the petitioner are certified copies. The learned counsel for the respondent has an opportunity to raise his objections when the document is tendered into evidence. Satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the counsel for the petitioner.
Hence, this petition is allowed. The above said documents are ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 1st day March, 2018.
FAC IV ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC IV Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2018
I.A.No. 128 of 2017
IN
R.C.No.379 of 2012
Between: Khaja Lateefuddin S/o. Mohd Abbas, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.12-2-790/66-A, Ayodhya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
Sham Kumar S/o. Late Ghisa Ram, Occ: Business, R/o C/o Mulgi No.6, Premises No.5-4-154, Lateef Complex, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Osman Shaheed Advocate for petitioner and of Sri N Bhaskar Rao, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the petitioner in the main RC under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC praying the court to recall PW.1 for marking additional documentary evidence stating that he want to file the certified copy of rental deeds dt.05.08.2003 in favour of Sham Kumar and 05.08.2003 in favor of Girish Kumar, which would prove that there is jural relationship between himself and respondent and it is just and necessary to recall PW.1 by reopening the matter.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the above said documents are irrelevant to the present case and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The petitioner herein filed the RC against the respondent herein for eviction and the same is coming for further evidence of the respondent. At this stage the petitioner filed the present petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking the above said document stating that they would prove that there is jural relationship between himself and respondent. The respondent opposed the same.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the main petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The documents filed by the petitioner are certified copies. If the respondent has any grievance he can raise his objection when the documents are tendered into evidence. Further the learned counsel for the respondent is having an opportunity to cross examine the witness. Satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the counsel
for the petitioner.
In the result, the petition is allowed
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 1st day March, 2018.
FAC IV ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC IV Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2018
I.A.No. 127 of 2017
IN
R.C.No.379 of 2012
Between: Khaja Lateefuddin S/o. Mohd Abbas, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.12-2-790/66-A, Ayodhya Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
Sham Kumar S/o. Late Ghisa Ram, Occ: Business, R/o C/o Mulgi No.6, Premises No.5-4-154, Lateef Complex, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Osman Shaheed Advocate for petitioner and of Sri N Bhaskar Rao, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the petitioners in the main RC under section 151 CPC praying the court to reopen the evidence of petitioner for marking additional documentary evidence stating that he want to file the certified copy of rental deeds dt.05.08.2003 in favour of Sham Kumar and 05.08.2003 in favor of Girish Kumar, which would prove that there is jural relationship between himself and respondent and it is just and necessary to recall PW.1 by reopening the matter.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the above said documents are irrelevant to the present case and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The petitioner herein filed the RC against the respondent herein for eviction and the same is coming for further evidence of the respondent. At this stage the petitioner filed the present petition under section 151 CPC to reopen the evidence of petitioner for the purpose of marking the above said document stating that they would prove that there is jural relationship between himself and respondent. The respondent opposed the same.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the main petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The documents filed by the petitioner are certified copies. If the respondent has any grievance he can raise his objection when the documents are tendered into evidence. Further the learned counsel for the respondent is having an opportunity to cross examine the witness. Satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the counsel
for the petitioner.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 1st day March, 2018.
FAC IV ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC IV Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2018
I.A.NO.203 of 2017
IN
R.C.No.292 of 2013
Between: M/s Krishna Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., 13-6-824/1 & 2, Karwan Road, Hyderabad rep. by its Director Shri Girish Gupta, S/o Late Sri Nirmal Kumar Gupta.
.. Petitioner/Landlord
A n d
M/s Tirupati Roller Flour Mills (p) Ltd., 13-6-824/1, Karwan Road, Hyderabad rep by its Director.
.. Respondent/Tenant
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri R.A. Achutanand, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the petitioners in the main RC under section 151 CPC praying the court to reopen the evidence of petitioner for marking of certified copy of company petition No.38/2006 along with affidavit verifying the company petition and special power of attorney of RW.1 and print copy of the Google map as exhibits stating that during the cross examination RW.1 pleaded ignorance when certified copy of CP.No.38/2006 and goole map as RW.1 is one of the petitioners therein supports the case of the petitioners herein and as such the said documents are necessary to prove the case of the petitioner and the said certified copies were obtained recently.
The director of the respondent firm filed counter denying the petition averments stating that filing of accompany application No.38/2006 is not maintainable and after evidence of respondents, no documents can be received and the alleged documents are not relevant and the petitioner has filed the said documents after closure of his evidence and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The petitioner herein filed the RC against the respondent herein for fixation of fair rent and the same is coming for arguments. At this stage the petitioner filed the present petition under section 151 CPC to reopen his evidence stating that the said documents are necessary to prove the case of the petitioner and the said certified copies were obtained recently. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed by stating that the said documents are not relevant.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the main petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. If the respondent has any grievance he can raise his objection when the documents are tendered into evidence. Further the learned counsel for the respondent is having an opportunity to cross examine the witness. The documents filed by the petitioner are certified copies. The objections raised by the respondent are not tenable. Satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the counsel for the petitioner.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th day March, 2018.
FAC IV ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC IV Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2018
I.A.NO.204 of 2017
IN
R.C.No.292 of 2013
Between: M/s Krishna Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., 13-6-824/1 & 2, Karwan Road, Hyderabad rep. by its Director Shri Girish Gupta,
S/o Late Sri Nirmal Kumar Gupta.
.. Petitioner/Landlord
A n d
M/s Tirupati Roller Flour Mills (p) Ltd., 13-6-824/1, Karwan Road, Hyderabad rep by its Director.
.. Respondent/Tenant
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri R.A. Achutanand, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC praying the court to recall PW.1 for marking of certified copy of company petition No.38/2006 along with affidavit verifying the company petition and special power of attorney of RW.1 and print copy of the Google map as exhibits stating that during the cross examination RW.1 pleaded ignorance when certified copy of CP.No.38/2006 and goole map as RW.1 is one of the petitioners therein supports the case of the petitioners herein and as such the said documents are necessary to prove the case of the petitioner and the said certified copies were obtained recently.
The director of the respondent firm filed counter denying the petition averments stating that filing of accompany application No.38/2006 is not maintainable and after evidence of respondents, no documents can be received and the alleged documents are not relevant and the petitioner has filed the said documents after closure of his evidence and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The petitioner herein filed the RC against the respondent herein for fixation of fair rent and the same is coming for arguments. At this stage the petitioner filed the present petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking the above said documents stating that the said documents are necessary to prove the case of the petitioner and the said certified copies were obtained recently. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed by stating that the said documents are not relevant.
This court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the main petition on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. If the respondent has any grievance he can raise his objection when the documents are tendered into evidence. Further the learned counsel for the respondent is having an opportunity to cross examine the witness. The documents filed by the petitioner are certified copies. The objections raised by the respondent are not tenable. Satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the counsel for the petitioner.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th day March, 2018.
FAC IV ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC IV Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2018
I.A.NO.205 of 2017
IN
R.C.No.292 of 2013
Between: M/s Krishna Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., 13-6-824/1 & 2, Karwan Road, Hyderabad rep. by its Director Shri Girish Gupta, S/o Late Sri Nirmal Kumar Gupta.
.. Petitioner/Landlord
A n d
M/s Tirupati Roller Flour Mills (p) Ltd., 13-6-824/1, Karwan Road, Hyderabad rep by its Director.
.. Respondent/Tenant
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri R.A. Achutanand, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules read with section 151 CPC praying the court to receive the certified copy of company petition No.38/2006 along with affidavit verifying the company petition and special power of attorney of RW.1 and print copy of the Google map that during the cross examination RW.1 pleaded ignorance when certified copy of CP.No.38/2006 and goole map as RW.1 is one of the petitioners therein supports the case of the petitioners herein and as such the said documents are necessary to prove the case of the petitioner and the said certified copies were obtained recently.
The director of the respondent firm filed counter denying the petition averments stating that filing of accompany application No.38/2006 is not maintainable and after evidence of respondents, no documents can be received and the alleged documents are not relevant and the petitioner has filed the said documents after closure of his evidence and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The petitioner herein filed the RC against the respondent herein for fixation of fair rent and the same is coming for arguments. At this stage the petitioner filed the present petition under rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules read with section 151 CPC praying the court to receive the above said document stating that the said documents are necessary to prove the case of the petitioner and the said certified copies were obtained recently. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed by stating that the said documents are not relevant.
Merits and demerits of the document sought to be received cannot be seen at this stage in this application. Receiving of documents is different from that of the document admitted into evidence.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that:
“Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
The counsel for the respondent has an opportunity to raise his objections when the documents are tendered into evidence. The documents filed by the petitioner are certified copies. The objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent are not tenable. Satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the counsel for the petitioner.
Hence, this petition is allowed. The above said documents are ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th day March, 2018.
FAC IV ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC IV Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 1st day of Febraury, 2018
S.R.No.1030 of 2017
IN
R.C.No.56 of 2011
Between: Mohd Arif S/o. Mohd Qamaruddin, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.22-3-619, Zehra Nagar, Mir Alam Mandi, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
Sri Mohamed Sayeed S/o. Mohd Abdul Hai, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mir Alam Mandi, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Md. Osman Shaheed, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri T. Bheem Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 33 of Indian Stamps Act praying the court to send the rental deed dt.02.11.2009 to the concerned Sub Registrar office for impounding stating that he filed colour copy of rental deed as original was filed in O.S.No.584/2009 on the file of Hon’ble II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and he filed a petition to summon original rental deed from the said court vide I.A.No.387/2014 and the same was dismissed on the ground that the said rental deed is unregistered and original rental deed is not to be found in
O.S.584/2009 even though the efforts are being made to trace out the
same and he already filed a petition to receive colour copy of rental deed in evidence as secondary evidence as the original is misplaced and as such he filed the present petition under Stamps Act to collect necessary registration and penalty charges.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the alleged rental deed dt.02.11.2009 to the concerned sub registrar office for impounding and collect the necessary registration and penalty charges is not maintainable in the absence of any original documents, in fact when there is no original rental deed, how can it be sent to the office of Sub Registrar and the petitioner has not made out any valid ground to seek permission to mark the non existing document colour copy and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The present petition filed U/s.33 of Stamp Act to send the rental deed dt.02.11.2009. It is stated by the petitioner that at para No.7 and 8 of affidavit that he filed colour copy of rental deed dt.02.11.2009, hence this petition comes under the Stamp Act to collect necessary registration and penalty charges and that he is ready to pay the same.
Section 33 of Stamp Act reads as follows: (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of a police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. (2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in India when such instrument was executed or first executed. Provided that:-
(a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate or
Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or impound if he does not think fit so
to do, any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898) (Now Chapters IX and X(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)
(b) In the case of a Judge of a High Court, the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf.
(3) For the purpose of this section, in cases of doubt,--
(a) the State Government may determine what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and
(b) the State Government may determine who shall be deemed to be persons-in-charge of public offices.
The contention in the petition affidavit are itself clear that the petitioner has filed copy of rental deed dt.02.11.2009 and he is seeking to send the said copy to Sub Registrar for collecting deficit stamp duty and penalty which is not permissible under law. Since the petitioner has not filed the original rental deed and he filed only a copy of the same. Hence it cannot be send to the District Registrar for collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty and that this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.
Hence, this petition is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 1st day February, 2018.
FAC IV ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2018
I.A.No.01 of 2018
IN
R.C.No.242 of 2004
Between: Anirudh Prasad S/o. Late Sri Johrilal Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.21-2-600, Urdu Galli, Patel Market, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
1. M/s. Maheshchand Benigopal, rep by G. LIngaiah (Died per Lrs)
2. New Reliance Type Writing & Shorthand Institute & Xerox Centre rep. by G. LIngaiah (Died per Lrs)
3. Sri Atma Prakash S/o. Late G. Lingaiah Aged about 47 years, Occ: Business,
4. Sri Venu S/o. Late G. Lingaiah, aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, 5 Smt. G. Lalitha W/o. Late G. Lingaiah Aged about 62 years, Occ: Housewife,
6. G. Uma Devi W/o. Vijaya Prakash, Aged about Major, Occ: Housewife,
7. G. Girija W/o. Late P. Hamsaraj, Aged about Major, Occ: Housewife,
8. G. Usha W/o. Damodhar, Age about Major, Occ: Housewife,
9. G. Muktha Bai W/o. Srinivas, Aged about Major, Occ; Housewife,
10. G. Padma W/o. Srinivas, Aged about Majoir, Occ: Housewife,
Respondents No.3 to 10 are R/o.22-5-63, Charkaman Road, Hyderabad and also R/o.21-6-319, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents/Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition has been filed by the Petitioner, who is the petitioner in the main RC under section 151 CPC praying the court to reopen the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of marking the documents stating that he filed RC for eviction of the respondents and earlier the petitioner also filed
RC.322/2002 against the respondents No.1 and 2 and the summons
issued by the court were received by deceased Lingaiah (representative of the respondents) on behalf of the respondents and also filed vakalat and the said RC.322/2002 was dismissed for default, but in the present RC, during the course of cross examination RW.1 denied the same by stating that the said RC.322/2002 was settled and compromised out of court and as such it is just and necessary to reopen the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of marking of documents i.e., certified copies of summons, vakalat and order of said RC showing that the same was dismissed for default and he recently obtained the certified copies of the said documents.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that earlier they have filed I.A.17 of 2017 and I.A.18 of 2017 to reopen and recall PW.1 for the purpose of further cross examination after they impleading in the present RC, they have filed additional counter and as such they wanted to further cross examine PW.1, but on due contest the said IAs were dismissed on 03.02.2017 and aggrieved by the same, they preferred CRP 956/2017 and 973/2017 and the same were dismissed on 16.08.2017 and hence question of recalling PW.1 and reopening it further does not arise as Hon’ble High Court has ceazed further proceedings on petitioner side and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The petitioner herein filed the RC against the respondents herein for eviction and the same is coming for arguments. At this stage the petitioner filed the present petition under section 151 CPC praying the court to reopen the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of marking the above said documents stating that recently he obtained the certified copies of the same showing that the RC.322/2002 petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed for default. The learned counsel for the respondents raised objection stating that the petitions in I.A.17/2017 and I.A.18/2017 filed by them to reopen and recall PW.1 for the purpose of further cross examination, but the said IAs were dismissed on 03.02.2017 and aggrieved by the same, they preferred CRP 956/2017 and 973/2017 and the same were dismissed on 16.08.2017 and hence question of recalling PW.1 and reopening it further does not arise as
Hon’ble High Court has ceazed further proceedings on petitioner side. The
objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent are not tenable as the present petition is filed to reopen the evidence of PW.1 only to the extent of marking of above said documents and the learned counsel for the respondent has an opportunity to cross examine PW.1 to that extent only.
Further this court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the main RC on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The counsel for the respondents has an opportunity to cross examine the witness. Satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the counsel for the petitioner.
Hence, this petition is allowed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of January, 2018
FAC I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2018
I.A.No.02 of 2018
IN
R.C.No.242 of 2004
Between: Anirudh Prasad S/o. Late Sri Johrilal Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.21-2-600, Urdu Galli, Patel Market, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
1. M/s. Maheshchand Benigopal, rep by G. LIngaiah (Died per Lrs)
2. New Reliance Type Writing & Shorthand Institute & Xerox Centre rep. by G. LIngaiah (Died per Lrs)
3. Sri Atma Prakash S/o. Late G. Lingaiah Aged about 47 years, Occ: Business,
4. Sri Venu S/o. Late G. Lingaiah, aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, 5 Smt. G. Lalitha W/o. Late G. Lingaiah Aged about 62 years, Occ: Housewife,
6. G. Uma Devi W/o. Vijaya Prakash, Aged about Major, Occ: Housewife,
7. G. Girija W/o. Late P. Hamsaraj, Aged about Major, Occ: Housewife,
8. G. Usha W/o. Damodhar, Age about Major, Occ: Housewife,
9. G. Muktha Bai W/o. Srinivas, Aged about Major, Occ; Housewife,
10. G. Padma W/o. Srinivas, Aged about Majoir, Occ: Housewife,
Respondents No.3 to 10 are R/o.22-5-63, Charkaman Road, Hyderabad and also R/o.21-6-319, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad. .. Respondents/Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the petitioner in the main RC under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC praying the court to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking the documents stating that he filed RC for eviction of the respondents and earlier the petitioner also filed RC.322/2002 against the respondents No.1 and 2 and the summons issued by the court were received by deceased Lingaiah (representative of the respondents) on behalf of the respondents and also filed vakalat and the said RC.322/2002 was dismissed for default, but in the present RC, during the course of cross examination RW.1 denied the same by stating that the said RC.322/2002 was settled and compromised out of court and as such it is just and necessary to reopen the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of marking of documents i.e., certified copies of summons, vakalat and order of said RC showing that the same was dismissed for default and he recently obtained the certified copies of the said documents.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that earlier they have filed I.A.17 of 2017 and I.A.18 of 2017 to reopen and recall PW.1 for the purpose of further cross examination after they impleading in the present RC, they have filed additional counter and as such they wanted to further cross examine PW.1, but on due contest the said IAs were dismissed on 03.02.2017 and aggrieved by the same, they preferred CRP 956/2017 and 973/2017 and the same were dismissed on 16.08.2017 and hence question of recalling PW.1 and reopening it further does not arise as Hon’ble High Court has ceased further proceedings on petitioner side and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The petitioner herein filed the RC against the respondents herein for eviction and the same is coming for arguments. At this stage the petitioner filed the present petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC praying the court to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking the above said documents stating that recently he obtained the certified copies of the same showing that the RC.322/2002 petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed for default. The learned counsel for the respondents raised objection stating that the petitions in I.A.17/2017 and I.A.18/2017 filed by them to reopen and recall PW.1 for the purpose of further cross examination, but the said IAs were dismissed on 03.02.2017 and aggrieved by the same, they preferred CRP 956/2017 and 973/2017 and the same were dismissed on 16.08.2017 and hence question of recalling PW.1 and reopening it further does not arise as Hon’ble High Court has ceased further proceedings on petitioner side. The objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent are not tenable as the present petition is filed to recall PW.1 only to the extent of marking of above said documents and the learned counsel for the respondent has an opportunity to cross examine PW.1 to that extent only.
Further this court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the main RC on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. The counsel for the respondents has an opportunity to cross examine the witness. Satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the counsel for the petitioner.
Hence, this petition is allowed without costs..
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of January, 2018
FAC I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2018.
I.A.No.03 of 2018
IN
R.C.No.242 of 2004
Between: Anirudh Prasad S/o. Late Sri Johrilal Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.21-2-600, Urdu Galli, Patel Market, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
1. M/s. Maheshchand Benigopal, rep by G. LIngaiah (Died per Lrs)
2. New Reliance Type Writing & Shorthand Institute & Xerox Centre rep. by G. LIngaiah (Died per Lrs)
3. Sri Atma Prakash S/o. Late G. Lingaiah Aged about 47 years, Occ: Business,
4. Sri Venu S/o. Late G. Lingaiah, aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, 5 Smt. G. Lalitha W/o. Late G. Lingaiah Aged about 62 years, Occ: Housewife,
6. G. Uma Devi W/o. Vijaya Prakash, Aged about Major, Occ: Housewife,
7. G. Girija W/o. Late P. Hamsaraj, Aged about Major, Occ: Housewife,
8. G. Usha W/o. Damodhar, Age about Major, Occ: Housewife,
9. G. Muktha Bai W/o. Srinivas, Aged about Major, Occ; Housewife,
10. G. Padma W/o. Srinivas, Aged about Majoir, Occ: Housewife,
Respondents No.3 to 10 are R/o.22-5-63, Charkaman Road, Hyderabad and also R/o.21-6-319, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents/Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the petitioner in the main RC under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules read with section 151 CPC praying the court to receive the documents stating that he filed RC for eviction of the respondents and earlier the petitioner also filed RC.322/2002 against the respondents No.1 and 2 and the summons issued by the court were received by deceased Lingaiah (representative of the respondents) on behalf of the respondents and also filed vakalat and the said RC.322/2002 was dismissed for default, but in the present RC, during the course of cross examination RW.1 denied the same by stating that the said
RC.322/2002 was settled and compromised out of court and as such it is
just and necessary to receive the certified copies of summons, vakalat and order of said RC showing that the same was dismissed for default and he recently obtained the certified copies of the said documents.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that earlier they have filed I.A.17 of 2017 and I.A.18 of 2017 to reopen and recall PW.1 for the purpose of further cross examination after they impleading in the present RC, they have filed additional counter and as such they wanted to further cross examine PW.1, but on due contest the said IAs were dismissed on 03.02.2017 and aggrieved by the same, they preferred CRP 956/2017 and 973/2017 and the same were dismissed on 16.08.2017 and hence question of recalling PW.1 and reopening it further does not arise as Hon’ble High Court has ceazed further proceedings on petitioner side and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The petitioner herein filed the RC against the respondents herein for eviction and the same is coming for arguments. At this stage the petitioner filed the present petition under rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules read with section 151 CPC praying the court to receive the above said documents stating that recently he obtained the certified copies of the same showing that the RC.322/2002 petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed for default. The learned counsel for the respondents raised objection stating that the petitions in I.A.17/2017 and I.A.18/2017 filed by them to reopen and recall PW.1 for the purpose of further cross examination, but the said IAs were dismissed on 03.02.2017 and aggrieved by the same, they preferred CRP 956/2017 and 973/2017 and the same were dismissed on 16.08.2017 and hence question of recalling PW.1 and reopening it further does not arise as Hon’ble High Court has ceazed further proceedings on petitioner side. The objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent are not tenable as the present petition is filed only to the extent of receiving of documents and the learned counsel for the respondent has an opportunity to cross examine PW.1 to that extent only.
Merits and demerits of the documents sought to be received cannot be seen at this stage in this application. Receiving of documents is different from that of the documents admitted into evidence.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that:
“Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
The counsel for the respondent has an opportunity to raise his objections when the documents are tendered into evidence. Satisfied with the reasons mentioned by the counsel for the petitioner.
Hence, this petition is allowed. The above said documents are ordered to be received, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of January, 2018
FAC I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2017.
I.A.No.155 of 2017
IN
R.C.No. 311 of 2010
Between: Rajesh Prasad, S/o. Late Baldev Prasad, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Electrician, R/o.14-9-444, Ist floor, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Respondent
A n d
Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Late Mr. Bansi Prasad, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Service, H.No.9-1-33/A/50, Prashanthi Nagar, Langer House, Hyderabad. …. Respondent/petitioner
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Dr.T.P. Shailaja, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri VSRMV Prasad Sanka, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the documents annexed as per list which are left over by the earlier counsel and to mark the same as exhibits stating that in the main RC he was examined as RW.1 and while filing his chief examination affidavit he filed certain documents and only some documents were marked as Ex.R.1 to R.3 and his earlier counsel in site of handing over some documents which are very proper and material for adjudication of the case, has not filed the same before the court and later he changed his counsel and engaged present counsel and as such it is just and necessary to reopen his evidence to file the said documents which are left over by his earlier counsel, otherwise he will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner filed I.A.No.179/2013 and I.A.No.180/2013 for recall of RW.1 and receive documents petition and the same were dismissed on 17.08.2013 and the petitioner preferred CRP No.4140/2013 and 4395/2016 and the same were also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 01.02.2017 and the very same documents which were filed along with I.A.No.179/2013 and I.A.180/2013 mixed with some more other documents filed the present petition to mislead the court and on 7.11.2017 the petitioner filed I.A.124/2017 and I.A.125/2017 for recall of PW.1 to PW.6 and reopen the petitioner’ evidence and said petitions were dismissed on 22.11.2017 and immediately the petitioner changed his earlier counsel and filed the present petition only to fill up the gaps in his evidence and absolutely there are no valid grounds to receive documents and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard the arguments of both the learned counsels on either side. .
The respondent herein filed the main RC against the petitioner herein for eviction and the main RC is at the stage of respondent evidence. At this stage the petitioner filed the present petition to receive the documents ie., original water bills(8), property tax receipts(2), electricity bills(24), LIC premium payment receipts(4), RTI letter dt.19.6.2013, dt.22.6.2013, 17.1.2014 respectively, original cheque for Rs.168.75 paise, original passbook of Bank of Baroda, Original voter ID, duplicate driving license, original ration card, original electrol ID card, original driving license, certified copies of depositions of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.7, PW.8 in
CC No.706/2009, Certified copy of judgments in CC No.706/2009 and
709/2002, Certified copy of deposition of PW.2 in CC No.709/2009, Certified copy of depositions PW.3 and PW.4 in CC No.709/2009, Certified copy of plaint in OS.593/2005, Certified copy of written statement in
O.S.593/2005, Certified copy of judgment and certified copy of decree in
OS.593/2005, Certified copy of FIR 187/2008, Copy of complaint
addressed to SHO Shahinayath gunj PS..
Perused the entire contents of the petition and counter filed by the petitioner as well as respondent and it is found that earlier the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.179/2013 and I.A.No.180/2013 to recall RW.1 for receiving of the documents i.e., certified copies of depositions of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.5, PW.7, PW.8 in CC No.706/2009, Property tax assessment register for the year 1982-2011, dt.28.7.2011, Notice dt.26.11.2012, reply notice dt.31.12.2012 and the said petitions were dismissed by the court on 17.8.2013 and the petitioner preferred CRP No.4140/2013 and 4395/2016 and the same were also dismissed by the
Hon’ble High Court on 01.02.2017. At present the petitioner herein filed
the present petition to receive the documents in which some of the above said documents i.e., certified copies of depositions of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.7 and PW.8 in CC No.706/2009 were also mixed.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that:
Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
Mere receiving of documents will not cause any prejudice to the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of documents at the time of evidence.
The certified copies of depositions of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.7 and PW.8 in CC No.706/2009 were not received by the trial court by reopening the evidence of RW.1 vide I.A.No.179/2013 and I.A.No.180/2013, dt.17.08.2013 and the same was also confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court vide CRP No.4140/2013 and 4395/2016 on 01.12.2017. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the above said documents should not be received in evidence. Except the above said documents i.e.,
1. Certified copy of deposition of PW.1 in CC 706/09.
2. Certified copy of deposition of PW.2 in CC 706/09.
3. Certified copy of deposition of PW.3 in CC 706/09.
4. Certified copy of deposition of PW.7 in CC 706/09.
5. Certified copy of deposition of PW.8 in CC 706/08 should not be received in evidence and also the certified copies of depositions of PW.2 to PW.4 in CC No.709/2009 as it is hit by Section 33 of Evidence Act and the same may be confronted with the witnesses if necessary by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the other documents i.e., original water bills(8), property tax receipts(2), electricity bills(24), LIC premium payment receipts(4), RTI letter dt.19.6.2013, dt.22.6.2013, 17.1.2014 respectively, original cheque for Rs.168.75 paise, original passbook of Bank of Baroda, Original voter ID, duplicate driving license, original ration card, original electrol ID card, original driving license and Certified copy of plaint in OS.593/2005, Certified copy of written statement in O.S.593/2005, Certified copy of judgment and certified copy of decree in OS.593/2005, Certified copy of FIR 187/2008, Certified copy of compliant addressed to SHO Shahinayath gunj PS are to be received keeping in view of above said decisions of Hon’ble High Court, subject to proof, relevancy and admissilbity of the said documents.
In the result, the petition is partly allowed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 7th day of December, 2017.
FAC I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad. - Dated this the 7th day of December, 2017.
I.A.No.154 of 2017
IN
R.C.No. 311 of 2010
Between: Rajesh Prasad, S/o. Late Baldev Prasad, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Electrician, R/o.14-9-444, Ist floor, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Respondent
A n d
Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Late Mr. Bansi Prasad, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Service, H.No.9-1-33/A/50, Prashanthi Nagar, Langer House, Hyderabad. …. Respondent/petitioner
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Dr.T.P. Shailaja, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri VSRMV Prasad Sanka, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent in the main RC under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC praying the court to recall RW.1 to mark the documents annexed as per list which are left by his earlier counsel and to mark the same as exhibits stating that in the main RC he was examined as RW.1 and while filing his chief examination affidavit he filed certain documents and only some documents were marked as Ex.R.1 to R.3 and his earlier counsel in spite of handing over some documents which are very proper and material for adjudication of the case, has not filed the same before the court and later he changed his counsel and engaged present counsel and as such it is just and necessary to reopen his evidence to file the said documents which are left over by his earlier counsel, otherwise he will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner filed I.A.No.179/2013 and I.A.No.180/2013 for recall of RW.1 and receive documents petition and the same were dismissed on 17.08.2013 and the petitioner preferred CRP No.4140/2013 and 4395/2016 and the same were also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 01.02.2017 and the very same documents which were filed along with I.A.No.179/2013 and I.A.180/2013 mixed with some more other documents filed the present petition to mislead the court and on 7.11.2017 the petitioner filed I.A.124/2017 and I.A.125/2017 for recall of PW.1 to PW.6 and reopen the petitioner’ evidence and said petitions were dismissed on 22.11.2017 and immediately the petitioner changed his earlier counsel and filed the present petition only to fill up the gaps in his evidence and absolutely there are no valid grounds to receive documents and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The respondent herein filed the main RC against the petitioner herein for eviction and the main RC is at the stage of respondent evidence. At this stage the petitioner filed the present petition to reopen his evidence for the purpose of marking of the documents ie., original water bills(8), property tax receipts(2), electricity bills(24), LIC premium payment receipts(4), RTI letter dt.19.6.2013, dt.22.6.2013, 17.1.2014 respectively, original cheque for Rs.168.75 paise, original passbook of Bank of Baroda, Original voter ID, duplicate driving license, original ration card, original electrol ID card, original driving license, certified copies of depositions of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.7, PW.8 in CC No.706/2009, Certified copy of judgments in CC No.706/2009 and 709/2002, Certified copy of deposition of PW.2 in CC No.709/2009, Certified copy of depositions PW.3 and PW.4 in CC No.709/2009, Certified copy of plaint in OS.593/2005, Certified copy of written statement in O.S.593/2005, Certified copy of judgment and certified copy of decree in OS.593/2005, Certified copy of FIR 187/2008, Certified copy of complaint addressed to SHO Shahinayath gunj PS..
Earlier the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.179/2013 and I.A.No.180/2013 to recall RW.1 for receiving of the documents i.e., certified copies of depositions of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.5, PW.7, PW.8 in CC No.706/2009, Property tax assessment register for the year 1982-2011, dt.28.7.2011, Notice dt.26.11.2012, reply notice dt.31.12.2012 and the said petitions were dismissed by the court on 17.8.2013 and the petitioner preferred CRP No.4140/2013 and 4395/2016 and the same were also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 01.02.2017. At present the petitioner herein filed the present petition to reopen the evidence of RW.1 for the purpose of marking of documents in which the above said documents were also mixed.
The certified copies of depositions of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.7 and PW.8 in CC No.706/2009 were not received by the trial court by reopening the evidence of RW.1 vide I.A.No.179/2013 and I.A.No.180/2013, dt.17.08.2013 and the same was also confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court vide CRP No.4140/2013 and 4395/2016 on 01.12.2017. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the above said documents i.e.,
1.Certified copy of deposition of PW.1 in CC 706/09.
2.Certified copy of deposition of PW.2 in CC 706/09.
3.Certified copy of deposition of PW.3 in CC 706/09.
4.Certified copy of deposition of PW.7 in CC 706/09.
5.Certified copy of deposition of PW.8 in CC 706/08 should not be received in evidence and also the certified copies of depositions of PW.2 to PW.4 in CC No.709/2009 as it is hit by Section 33 of Evidence Act and the same may be confronted with the witnesses if necessary by the learned counsel for the petitioner. .
Though, the petitioner filed the present petition at belated stage, on considering the contents of the petition affidavit, this court being trial court is under the obligation to dispose of the main RC on merits by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce best evidence. Hence this court is inclined to allow this petition.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 7th day of December, 2017.
FAC I ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2017.
R.C.No. 177 of 2015
Between: Mrs Samina Mahboob W/o. Shaik Mahboob Basha, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Housewife, Defense Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Represented by her GPA Mrs. Mohd Mustafa Khan, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-2-334/10, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Shaik Imam Ahmed S/o. Shaik Nazeer, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Tailor, R/o. Shop No.G-38, Premises No.5-8-599/9/F, Ratan Mall Shopping Complex, Mubarak Bazar, Abids, Hyderabad, R/o. H.No.5-5-342/56/A, Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad. …. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri Syed Altaf Mehdi, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M/s Khaja Moizuddin, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Counsel for petitioner present and filed memo stating that RC may be closed as the petitioner has sold the petition schedule property to respondent/tenant. Hence in view of submission of counsel for petitioner and memo, this RC is closed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of October, 2017.
,
PRL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2017.
R.C.No. 177 of 2015
Between: Mrs Samina Mahboob W/o. Shaik Mahboob Basha, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Housewife, Defense Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Represented by her GPA Mrs. Mohd Mustafa Khan, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-2-334/10, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Shaik Imam Ahmed S/o. Shaik Nazeer, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Tailor, R/o. Shop No.G-38, Premises No.5-8-599/9/F, Ratan Mall Shopping Complex, Mubarak Bazar, Abids, Hyderabad, R/o. H.No.5-5-342/56/A, Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri Syed Altaf Mehdi, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M/s Khaja Moizuddin, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Counsel for petitioner present and filed memo stating that RC may be closed as the petitioner has sold the petition schedule property to respondent/tenant. Hence in view of submission of counsel for petitioner and memo, this RC is closed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of October, 2017.
,
PRL. RENT CONTROLLER,
Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of December, 2016.
R.C.No.29 of 2014
Between:
1. Smt. Anupama Gajavada D/o. G. Sudershan, Aged 44 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.3738, Montrose Way, San Ramon, California, USA, presently at H.No.6-4-382, Plot No.91, CBI Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.
2. Ms. Sridevi Gajavada D/o. G. Sudershan, Aged 41 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.6-4-382, Plot No.91, CBI Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.
3. Srikanth Gajavada S/o. G. Sudershan, Aged 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.6-4-382, Plot No.91, CBI Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners.
A n d
Ram Kishan Katchwawa S/o. K. Tulsi Ram
Aged 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o.M.No.3-6-751/4, Himayath Nagar Main Road, Hyderabad. …. Respondent.
CLAIM:- PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF A.P. BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 FOR FIXATION OF
FAIR RENT.
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri E. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri M/s Thakur Singh, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioners No.1 to 3 has not pressed the petition. The petitioner No.2 has filed memo stating that the matter is settled out of court. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo and learned counsel for petitioners has not pressed the petition, the petition is dismised as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of December, 2016.
SD/-
SRI CVS SAI BHUPATHI,
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC PRL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri J. Hanumantha Rao, Prl. Rent Controller, FAC III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2017.
R.C.No.269 of 2011
Between: Narender Pershad, S/o. Late Jaishankar Das, Aged 79 years, R/o.4-8-29/1, Putlibowli, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Sri Gorakhnath, S/o. Not known, Aged 72 years, Tenant of premises No.4-8-8/1, Ganeshbagh, Putlibowli, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.K. Waghray, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri N. Mruthunjaya Sastry, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
I.A.No.90/2017 is allowed. All further proceedings in
RC.No.269/2011 are hereby stopped. The respondent is directed to vacate
the petition schedule property within one month from the date of this order and put the petitioner in possession thereof, failing which the petitioner is entitled to take possession of petition schedule property by following due process of law. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of August, 2017.
,
PRL. RENT CONTROLLER,
FAC III Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
…NIL…
PRL. RENT CONTROLLER,
FAC III Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2017.
R.C.No.200 of 2015
Between: Sanjay Thorat S/o. Vithal Thorat Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business, Tenant of Mulgis No.4-2-1038/3 & 1039 Ramkote, Badichowdi PS Lane, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner.
A n d
Aparna Ekbote D/o. Late Anil Ekbote Aged about 40 years, Occ: Landlady, R/o.H.No.3-3-70, G-1, Ground floor, Sagar Mansion, Qutbiguda, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent.
CLAIM:- PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 8(5) OF A.P. BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 FOR DEPOSIT OF RENT.
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri Srinivas Chamala, Advocate for petitioner and of Kalpana Ekbote, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioner has filed memo through petitioner stating that the respondent has informed the petitioner that the petition schedule property was sold to Naveen Vijay Wargi and petitioner herein is remitting the monthly rents to Naveen Vijay Wargi through MOs and he is refusing to receive the same and as such the petitioner has followed the procedure U/sec 8 of the RC Act and going to file deposit of rent petition against Naveen Vijay Wargi and not pressing the RC without prejudice to his rights in filing fresh deposit of rent petition.
The memo is recorded. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismsised as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 3rd day of February, 2017.
SD/-
SRI CVS SAI BHUPATHI,
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC PRL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2017.
R.C.No.201 of 2015
Between: Sanjay Thorat S/o. Vithal Thorat
Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business, Tenant of Mulgis No.4-2-1038/3 & 1039 Ramkote, Badichowdi PS Lane, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner.
A n d
Aparna Ekbote D/o. Late Anil Ekbote Aged about 40 years, Occ: Landlady, R/o.H.No.3-3-70, G-1, Ground floor, Sagar Mansion, Qutbiguda, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent.
CLAIM:- PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 8(5) OF A.P. BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 FOR DEPOSIT OF RENT.
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri Srinivas Chamala, Advocate for petitioner and of Kalpana Ekbote, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioner has filed memo through petitioner stating that the respondent has informed the petitioner that the petition schedule property was sold to Naveen Vijay Wargi and petitioner herein is remitting the monthly rents to Naveen Vijay Wargi through MOs and he is refusing to receive the same and as such the petitioner has followed the procedure U/sec 8 of the RC Act and going to file deposit of rent petition against Naveen Vijay Wargi and not pressing the RC without prejudice to his rights in filing fresh deposit of rent petition.
The memo is recorded. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismsised as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 3rd day of February, 2017.
SD/-
SRI CVS SAI BHUPATHI,
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC PRL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri K. Naga Raja Rao, IV Addl. Rent Controller, FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 26th day of April, 2017.
E.P.No.13 of 2008
IN
R.C.No.288 of 2002
Between:-
D. Sunil Kumar S/o. D. Balaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mulgi No.15-8-517, Feel Khana, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. .. Claim Petitioner
A n d
1. Mohammed Dastagir (died per LRs)
2. Riyaz Anwar S/o. Mohammed Dastagir, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Business,
3. Sajjad Anwar S/o. Mohammed Dastagir, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business,
4. Faizunnisa Begum D/o. Mohammed Dastagir, Aged: Major, Occ: Business,
All are R/o.H.No.5-6-383/A, Nampally, Hyderabad.
…. Respondents/Decree holders
5. D. Suresh Kumar S/o. Late D. Balaiah, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.14-1-182, Seetarampet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Judgment debtor
6. Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, having office at Haj House, Nampally, Hyderabad. …. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri J. Shankarlal, Advocate for claim petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The E.P. is advanced to this day vide orders in E.A.No.30/17,
dated 26.4.2017.
The police-aid petition is allowed separately. The break open lock petition is returned separately.
Issue fresh eviction warrant on process returnable on or before 3.5.2017.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 26th day of April, 2017.
SD/-
SRI K. NAGA RAJA RAO
IV ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER
FAC I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri S. Nageswara Rao, Additioal Judge, FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2017.
E.P.No.2 of 2017
IN
R.C.No.343 of 2011
Between:-
A. Rajeshwar @ A. Raju S/o. Late A. Pentaiah, Aged 52 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. H.NO.21-1-389/1, First Floor, Rikab Gunj, Hyderabad.
.. Decree holder
A n d
Santosh Kumar Agarwal S/o. Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, Aged: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.21-3-667, Near Chelapura, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad. Shop NO.21-1-389, Rikab Gunj, Hyderabad.
…. Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri Ch. Ramesh, Advocate for decree holder and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Perused Joint Memo. The same is recorded. Accordingly,
E.P. is terminated.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 2nd day of June, 2017.
FAC I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri K. Naga Raja Rao, IV Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2017.
R.C.No.171 of 2015
Between:-
Shaik Ahemd, s/o. Shaik Masthan, aged about 36 years, occ: business, R/o.H.No.9-10-68/A/36, Reshambagh, Risala Bazar, Golconda, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/landlord
A n d
1. Mohd. Jalaal Khan, h/o. late Nafeez Begum, aged major, occ: business,
2. Mohd Riyaz Khan, s/o. not known, aged major, occ: business,
3. Mohd Fiaz Khan, s/o. not known, aged major, occ: business,
4. Feroz Khan, s/o. not known, aged major, occ: business,
All are R/o.H.No.11-3-492, CIB H.No.795/IV Mouzampura, Hyderabad. …. Respondents/tenants.
DOCKET ORDER
PW.1 is present since 10.30 a.m. The counsel for respondents and respondents are called absent at 11.50 a.m. Counsel for petitioner and petitioner present at 11.50 a.m. Costs of Rs.200/- as ordered on 21.2.2017 are not paid to PW.1 sofar.
The counsel for respondents is called absent at 1.12 noon.
PW.1 and counsel for petitioner are present at 1.12 noon. Costs of
Rs.200/- are not paid by respondents to PW.1. The matter is posted finally for cross examiantion of PW.1. Hence there is no reason for waiting further causing inconvenience to PW.1. As such cross examiantion of PW.1 is treated as nil. For further evidence of petitioner, at request of counsel for petitioner call on 15.3.2017.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 2nd day of March, 2017.
IV ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri K. Naga Raja Rao, IV Addl.Rent Controller,
City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2017.
E.A.S.R.216 of 2017
IN
E.P.15 of 2017
IN
R.C.649 of 1993
Between: Syed Hamid Husain Jaffery
.. Petitioner/Judgment debtor.
A n d
Syed Naveed Raza Abidi …. Respondent No.6/decree holder.
CLAIM:- PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 30 AND 47 AND ORDER 16 RULE 1(2) CPC TO SUMMON WITNESS.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Shaik Mahmood Ali, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Perused the record.
This execution application is filed to summon the bailiff, who executed the eviction warrant in E.P.15 of 2007.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the execution warrant was wrongly executed by evicting the petitioner from Mulgi No.431/1. But as per the orders in R.A.17 of 2001, dt.7.12.20014, the Hon’ble appellate court found through the witness of the petitioner herein only (RW.2 therein) the Mulgi Nos.22-8-430 and 22-8-431 were sold to the respondent No.1/decree holder (since deceased, represented by Legal heirs). Therefore, the petitioner cannot say the question of title of the petitioner was not considered.
The counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments.
(i) Vasant Rao Vs. E. Raj Reddy reported in 2003(1) ALD 726, in which it was held that it is not mandatory for a civil court not to issue any notice if the execution petition is filed before expiry of two years from the date of decree.
In A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, there are separate provisions for execution and the provisions under Civil Procedure Code pertaining to execution are not applicable.
(ii)Satyanaraian Bajoria and another Vs. V. Ramnarain Tibrewal and another reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1583. The Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with setting aside of sale due to irregularities in attachment in that case which is not applicable to the set of facts of the present case.
As per the orders of Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil No.10864/2005, dt.24.11.2006, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner herein got title over property i.e., 22-8-431/1 by virtue of transfer in his favour by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Hon’ble Apex Court advised the petitioner herein to raise the question of title before any appropriate forum. Further as per the bailiff report, dt.17.12.2014 the property vide mulgi No.22-8-431 which was adjacent to mulgi No.22-8-430 was only delivered to the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.1 and not 22-8-431/1. As such the EP.15/2007 was also closed with full satisfaction on 26.12.2014. Now an enquiry cannot be taken out by this executing court by summoning the bailiff, as the Honurable Appellate court vide its order in R.A.17/2001, dated 7.12.2014 already dealt with the question of title of mulgi No.22-8-431 between the petitioner herein and deceased respondent No.1, represented by Legal representatives ordering eviction of the petitioner herein which is confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad vide CRP No.337/2005,dt.18.3.2005.
The petitioner got a registered conveyance deed, dt.21.7.2006 in his favour of the property No.22-8-431/1 which is different from petition schedule property herein, during the pendency of the matter before Apex Court. How, property No.22-8-431, in which the petitioner is in possession was sub divided into 22-8-431/1 and a conveyance deed was executed by Government of Andhra Pradesh (a third party) in lis is not explained. Such transfer no way affect the rights of decree holder.
Hence, this execution court cannot go beyond decree that too regarding the eviction of the petitioner which was obtained after the
Hon’ble High Court confirmed the eviction orders passed by the Honble 1st
appellate court finding the title of the H.No.22-8-431 in favour of the respondent No.1 (Since deceased, represented by his Legal heirs).
As such this Execution Application is rejected.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 10th day of April, 2017.
IV ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2016.
R.C.No.73 of 2015
Between: Shakir Ahmed Mustafa, s/o. Sri Mustafa Qamar, aged 35 years, Occ: Service, R/o.4390 Annesley Lane, Irving, Texas-10062 USA Rep. by his natural father and GPA holder Sri Mustafa Qamar, S/o. Sri Gulam Dastagir Khan, Aged 70 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.404, under municipal No.16-2-46/5/B, Arafat Residency, Akbar Bagh, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner.
A n d
Nissar Ali Khan S/o. Late Ansar Ali Khan, Aged 42 years, Occ: Business, Ro. Flat in Ground floor under MCH No.16-2-46/5/3 (Old No.16-2-46/5), Mustafa Building, Akber Bagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad. …. Respondent.
CLAIM:- PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF A.P. BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 FOR FIXATION OF
FAIR RENT.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.R. Patel, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Publication not filed. Petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 14th day of October, 2016.
SD/-
SRI CVS SAI BHUPATHI,
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2017
R.C.No.90 of 2016
Between: Sangaboina Arun Kumar s/o S. Ananthaiah Hindu, Aged 39 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.14-3-196, Goshamahal Colony, Joshiwadi, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
Nalla Gyaneshwar, W/o. Late Nalla Anthaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.14-3-63, Andheri Bowli, Laxminarayan Bhag, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
CLAIM: PEITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act FOR FIXATION OF FAIR RENT
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Layeeq Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri K. Sreedhar Reddy, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.30.1.2017
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 4.45 p.m.
The case is again called at 4.45 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel
for petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no
interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of January, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2017
R.C.No.98 of 2016
Between: Sangaboina Arun Kumar s/o S. Ananthaiah Hindu, Aged 39 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.14-3-196, Goshamahal Colony, Joshiwadi, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
Mujakari Srinivas, S/o. Late Mujakari Dhanraj, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.14-3-63, Andheri Bowli, Laxminarayan Bhag, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
CLAIM: PEITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act FOR FIXATION OF FAIR RENT
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Layeeq Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri K. Sreedhar Reddy, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.30.1.2017
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 4.45 p.m.
The case is again called at 4.45 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel
for petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no
interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of January, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2017
R.C.No.95 of 2016
Between: Sangaboina Arun Kumar s/o S. Ananthaiah Hindu, Aged 39 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.14-3-196, Goshamahal Colony, Joshiwadi, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
Gullaya Garilaxmamah, W/o Gullaya Gari Kistaiah, Aged about 80 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.14-3-63, Andheri Bowli, Laxminarayan Bhag, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
CLAIM: PEITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act FOR FIXATION OF FAIR RENT
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Layeeq Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri K. Sreedhar Reddy, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.30.1.2017
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 4.45 p.m.
The case is again called at 4.45 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel
for petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no
interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of January, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2017
R.C.No.94 of 2016
Between: Sangaboina Arun Kumar s/o S. Ananthaiah Hindu, Aged 39 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.14-3-196, Goshamahal Colony, Joshiwadi, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
Thapetla Prabhakar, S/o Late Thapetla Sathaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.14-3-63, Andheri Bowli, Laxminarayan Bhag, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
CLAIM: PEITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act FOR FIXATION OF FAIR RENT
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Layeeq Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri K. Sreedhar Reddy, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.30.1.2017
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 4.45 p.m.
The case is again called at 4.45 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel
for petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no
interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of January, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2017
R.C.No.92 of 2016
Between: Sangaboina Arun Kumar s/o S. Ananthaiah Hindu, Aged 39 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.14-3-196, Goshamahal Colony, Joshiwadi, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
Garipally Shobha, W/o Late Garipally Ashok, aged about 68 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.14-3-63, Andheri Bowli, Laxminarayan Bhag, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
CLAIM: PEITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act FOR FIXATION OF FAIR RENT
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Layeeq Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri K. Sreedhar Reddy, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.30.1.2017
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 4.45 p.m.
The case is again called at 4.45 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel
for petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no
interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of January, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2017
R.C.No.93 of 2016
Between: Sangaboina Arun Kumar s/o S. Ananthaiah Hindu, Aged 39 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.14-3-196, Goshamahal Colony, Joshiwadi, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
Veroju Kalavathi, W/o Late Veroju Gyaneshwara Chary, aged about 53 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.14-3-63, Andheri Bowli, Laxminarayan Bhag, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
CLAIM: PEITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act FOR FIXATION OF FAIR RENT
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Layeeq Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri K. Sreedhar Reddy, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.30.1.2017
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 4.45 p.m.
The case is again called at 4.45 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel
for petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no
interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of January, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2017
R.C.No.91 of 2016
Between: Sangaboina Arun Kumar s/o S. Ananthaiah Hindu, Aged 39 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.14-3-196, Goshamahal Colony, Joshiwadi, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
Devi Bai Yadav, W/o Late Balloj Yaav, aged about 68 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.14-3-63, Andheri Bowli, Laxminarayan Bhag, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
CLAIM: PEITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act FOR FIXATION OF FAIR RENT
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Layeeq Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Murlinarayan Bung, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.30.1.2017
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 4.45 p.m.
The case is again called at 4.45 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel
for petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no
interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of January, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2017
R.C.No.99 of 2016
Between: Sangaboina Arun Kumar s/o. S. Ananthaiah Hindu, Aged 39 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.14-3-196, Goshamahal Colony, Joshiwadi, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
Mujakari Narsingh Rao S/o. Late Mujakari Balaiah aged about 72 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.14-3-63, Andheri Bowli, Laxminarayan Bhag, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent
CLAIM: PEITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act FOR FIXATION OF FAIR RENT
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Layeeq Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri V.S. Sudhakar, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.17.2.2017
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 4.15 p.m.
The case is again called at 4.15 p.m. Petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 17th day of February, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2017
R.C.No.31 of 2016
Between:
1. Azam Ilahi Khan s/o. Fazle Ilahi Khan, aged about 69 years, Occ: Retired Employee,
2. Shoukat Ilahi Khan S/o. Fazle Ilahi Khan Aged about 66 years, Occ: Business,
3. Rafat Ilahi Khan S/o. FAzle Ilahi Khan aged about 64 years, occ: Nil,
4. Atiya Begum W/o. Late Syed Ameerullah Bukhari aged about 56 yeaers, occ: Household,
All are R/o. Flat No.405, under premiseis No. 10-2-11/3, Maphar Annexe Apartments, AC Guards, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
And
Mohd Shakeel Ali, S/o. Mohd Yousuf Ali, aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, Tenant of Mulgi No.5-7-504/1, Nampally Market, Hyderabad. …. Respondents
CLAIM: PEITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act FOR FIXATION OF FAIR RENT
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the petitioners and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.7.2.2017
The learned counsel for petitioners has filed memo stating that respondent took stand that quantum of rent is Rs.4000/- and petition schedule mulgi is one measuring 10’ x 39” in eviction matters before IV
Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in RC.24/16 and as such the court
has got no jurisdiction and the tenancy is oral and there is no practice of passing receipt and there is no proof with regard to quantum of rent and petitioners admit the contention of respondent that quantum of rent is
Rs.4000/- and intends to take steps before competent court and prays the court to dismiss the RC as withdrawn and not pressed and further permitting to take appropriate steps in proper court. The memo is recorded.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of February, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2017
R.C.No.32 of 2016
Between:
1. Azam Ilahi Khan s/o. Fazle Ilahi Khan, aged about 69 years, Occ: Retired Employee,
2. Shoukat Ilahi Khan S/o. Fazle Ilahi Khan Aged about 66 years, Occ: Business,
3. Rafat Ilahi Khan S/o. FAzle Ilahi Khan aged about 64 years, occ: Nil,
4. Atiya Begum W/o. Late Syed Ameerullah Bukhari aged about 56 yeaers, occ: Household,
All are R/o. Flat No.405, under premiseis No. 10-2-11/3, Maphar Annexe Apartments, AC Guards, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
And
Mohd Shakeel Ali, S/o. Mohd Yousuf Ali, aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, Tenant of Mulgi No.5-7-504/1, Nampally Market, Hyderabad. …. Respondents
CLAIM: PEITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act FOR FIXATION OF FAIR RENT
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the petitioners and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.7.2.2017
The learned counsel for petitioners has filed memo stating that respondent took stand that quantum of rent is Rs.4000/- and petition schedule mulgi is one measuring 10’ x 39” in eviction matters before IV
Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in RC.25/16 and as such the court
has got no jurisdiction and the tenancy is oral and there is no practice of passing receipt and there is no proof with regard to quantum of rent and petitioners admit the contention of respondent that quantum of rent is
Rs.4000/- and intends to take steps before competent court and prays the court to dismiss the RC as withdrawn and not pressed and further permitting to take appropriate steps in proper court. The memo is recorded.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of February, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2017
R.C.No.33 of 2016
Between:
1. Azam Ilahi Khan s/o. Fazle Ilahi Khan, aged about 69 years, Occ: Retired Employee,
2. Shoukat Ilahi Khan S/o. Fazle Ilahi Khan
Aged about 66 years, Occ: Business,
3. Rafat Ilahi Khan S/o. FAzle Ilahi Khan aged about 64 years, occ: Nil,
4. Atiya Begum W/o. Late Syed Ameerullah Bukhari aged about 56 yeaers, occ: Household,
All are R/o. Flat No.405, under premiseis No. 10-2-11/3, Maphar Annexe Apartments, AC Guards, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
And
Mohd Shakeel Ali, S/o. Mohd Yousuf Ali, aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, Tenant of Mulgi No.5-7-504/1, Nampally Market, Hyderabad. …. Respondents
CLAIM: PEITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act FOR FIXATION OF FAIR RENT
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the petitioners and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.7.2.2017
The learned counsel for petitioners has filed memo stating that respondent took stand that quantum of rent is Rs.4000/- and petition schedule mulgi is one measuring 10’ x 39” in eviction matters before IV
Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in RC.23/16 and as such the court
has got no jurisdiction and the tenancy is oral and there is no practice of passing receipt and there is no proof with regard to quantum of rent and petitioners admit the contention of respondent that quantum of rent is
Rs.4000/- and intends to take steps before competent court and prays the court to dismiss the RC as withdrawn and not pressed and further permitting to take appropriate steps in proper court. The memo is recorded.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of February, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2017
I.A.No.22 of 2017
IN
R.C.No.392 of 2011
Between:
1. Moin Shah S/o. Muneer Ahmed Shariff, aged about 51 years, Private Service,
2. Muzeeba W/o. Moin Shah, aged about 48 years, 48 years, Household,
Both residents of Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners/Respondents
And
1. Kaneez Fathima W/o. Riyaz Hussain, aged 53 years, Occ: Housewife,
2. Riyaz Hussain S/o. S.S. Hussain, aged about 55 years, Occ: Pvt. Service,
Both residents of Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. …. Respondents/Petitioners
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M/s Ahmed Khan Associates, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri G. Ravi Mohan., Advocate for respondents and of respondent set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.3.2.2017
This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the respondents in the main RC under Order IX Rule 9 read with section 151
CPC praying the court to set aside the order dt.19.1.2017 in the RC stating that the respondents filed the RC against them for eviction and the respondents are not their landlords and there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the respondents and their landlord is one Mohammed Azam, who inducted them as his tenant in the property they are occupying and the respondents have nothing to do with them or the property in their possession and their landlord, Mohammed Azam’s examination as a witness is necessary to arrive at just and reasonable conclusion and the said Mohammed Azam seems to have joined hands with the respondents with an ulterior motive and as such they filed an application for summoning of the said Mohammed Azam and the said petition was allowed and the petitioners herein deposited the process and sent the same to their known address, but due to influence of the petitioners in the RC, the said Mohammed Azam dodged to receive the summons due to which the court proceeded with the RC, but on 19.1.2017 the respondent’s side evidence was closed thereby giving chance of miscarriage ofjustice and the examination of Mohammed Azam is very essential and necessary, otherwise they would suffer heavy and irreparable loss and pray the court to reopen the respondents’ side evidence by setting aside the order dt.19.1.2017.
The learned counsel for the respondents has not filed counter, but argued the matter.
Heard.
The docket proceedings of the RC shows that the case was posted from 18.1.2017 to 20.1.2017. Whereas the petitioners herein have mentioned that on 19.1.2017 the respondents’ evidence in the main RC was closed. The RC was not posted on 19.1.2017 and no order was passed on 19.1.2017 as averred by the petitioners herein in their affidavit. There are no bonafides in the petition and the petition is not maintainable.
In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 3rd day of February, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2017
I.A.No.23 of 2017
IN
R.C.No.392 of 2011
Between:
1. Moin Shah S/o. Muneer Ahmed Shariff, aged about 51 years, Private Service,
2. Muzeeba W/o. Moin Shah, aged about 48 years, 48 years, Household,
Both residents of Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners/Respondents
And
1. Kaneez Fathima W/o. Riyaz Hussain, aged 53 years, Occ: Housewife,
2. Riyaz Hussain S/o. S.S. Hussain, aged about 55 years, Occ: Pvt. Service,
Both residents of Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. …. Respondents/Petitioners
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M/s Ahmed Khan Associates, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri G. Ravi Mohan, Advocate for respondents and of respondent set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.3.2.2017
This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the respondents in the main RC under section 151 CPC praying the court to reopen the respondents’ side evidence in RC.392/2011 stating that the respondents filed the RC against them for eviction and the respondents are not their landlords and there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the respondents and their landlord is one
Mohammed Azam, who inducted them as his tenant in the property they are occupying and the respondents have nothing to do with them or the property in their possession and their landlord, Mohammed Azam’s examination as a witness is necessary to arrive at just and reasonable conclusion and the said Mohammed Azam seems to have joined hands with the respondents with an ulterior motive and as such they filed an application for summoning of the said Mohammed Azam and the said petition was allowed and the petitioners herein deposited the process and sent the same to their known address, but due to influence of the petitioners in the
RC, the said Mohammed Azam dodged to receive the summons due to which the court proceeded with the RC, but on 19.1.2017 the respondent’s side evidence was closed thereby giving chance of miscarriage of justice and the examination of Mohammed Azam is very essential and necessary, otherwise they would suffer heavy and irreparable loss and pray the court to reopen the respondents’ side evidence by setting aside the order dt.19.1.2017.
The learned counsel for the respondents has not filed counter, but argued the matter.
Heard.
The docket proceedings of the RC shows that the case was posted from 18.1.2017 to 20.1.2017. Whereas the petitioners herein have mentioned that on 19.1.2017 the respondents’ evidence in the main RC was closed. The RC was not posted on 19.1.2017 and no order was passed on 19.1.2017 as averred by the petitioners herein in their affidavit. There are no bonafides in the petition and the petition is not maintainable.
In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 3rd day of February, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2017
I.A.No.24 of 2017
IN
R.C.No.392 of 2011
Between:
1. Moin Shah S/o. Muneer Ahmed Shariff, aged about 51 years, Private Service,
2. Muzeeba W/o. Moin Shah, aged about 48 years, 48 years, Household,
Both residents of Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners/Respondents
And
1. Kaneez Fathima W/o. Riyaz Hussain, aged 53 years, Occ: Housewife,
2. Riyaz Hussain S/o. S.S. Hussain, aged about 55 years, Occ: Pvt. Service,
Both residents of Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. …. Respondents/Petitioners
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M/s Ahmed Khan Associates, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri G. Ravi Mohan, Advocate for respondents and of respondent set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.3.2.2017
This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the respondents in the main RC under section 151 CPC praying the court to order for handling over of the summons on Mohammed Azam, personally by the petitioners herein in the RC.392/2011 stating that the respondents filed the RC against them for eviction and the respondents are not their landlords and there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the respondents and their landlord is one Mohammed Azam, who inducted them as his tenant in the property they are occupying and the respondents have nothing to do with them or the property in their possession and their landlord, Mohammed Azam’s examination as a witness is necessary to arrive at just and reasonable conclusion and the said Mohammed Azam seems to have joined hands with the respondents with an ulterior motive and as such they filed an application for summoning of the said Mohammed Azam and the said petition was allowed and the petitioners herein deposited the process and sent the same to their known address, but due to influence of the petitioners in the
RC, the said Mohammed Azam dodged to receive the summons due to which the court proceeded with the RC, but on 19.1.2017 the respondent’s side evidence was closed thereby giving chance of miscarriage of justice and the examination of Mohammed Azam is very essential and necessary, otherwise they would suffer heavy and irreparable loss and pray the court to reopen the respondents’ side evidence by setting aside the order dt.19.1.2017.
The learned counsel for the respondents has not filed counter, but argued the matter.
Heard.
The docket proceedings of the RC shows that the case was posted from 18.1.2017 to 20.1.2017. Whereas the petitioners herein have mentioned that on 19.1.2017 the respondents’ evidence in the main RC was closed. The RC was not posted on 19.1.2017 and no order was passed on 19.1.2017 as averred by the petitioners herein in their affidavit. There are no bonafides in the petition and the petition is not maintainable.
In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 3rd day of February, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC Prl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2017
I.A.No.190 of 2016
IN
R.C.No.272 of 2012
Between: Y. Urmila W/o. Late Y. Ramesh, Hindu, aged 54 years, Occ: Employee, C/o. R. Ganesh Kumar, R/o.13-2-763/7, Kagaz Guda Street, Neat S.B.H. Pooranaool, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
Kalva Venkatesh S/o. Late Narayana, Hindu, aged 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.C/o.Suri, H.No.18-6-627, Beside Badam Mosque, Lal Darwaza, Hyderabad. …. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Krishna Mohan, Advocate for petitioner and of respondent set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.3.2.2017
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 152 CPC praying the court to correct the decree by inserting the word “Goud” in eastern boundary i.e., “Lane and H.No.18-6-601 of Ravinder Goud” instead of “Lane and H.No.18-6-601 of Ravinder G” stating that the petitioner filed the main RC for eviction and also for recovery of arrears of rent and at the time of filing of petition all the boundaries are shown correctly and it is unfortunate to note that at the time of preparing decree and in the judgment eastern boundary is wrongly typed as “Lane and H.No.18-6-601 of Ravinder G” instead of ‘Lane and H.No.18-6-601 of Ravinder Goud’ and earlier she filed one application for amendment of the same, but the court returned the same on 16.9.2016 and directed to file fresh application correctly and as such she filed the present petition and the respondent preferred rent appeal with a delay of 34 days in filing appeal and he also filed an application to condone delay of 34 days in filing appeal before the
Hon’ble Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and Hon’ble
appellate court was pleased to allow the appeal by condoning the delay in filing appeal on condition to pay Rs.1000/- to the petitioner herein and the respondent failed to make payment to her and the Hon’ble appellate court dismissed the appeal on 23.11.2015 and the petitioner herein filed EP for eviction and the EP was returned on the ground that the eastern boundary or otherwise she will be put to great hardship.
The respondent called absent and no representation. Hence the respondent is set exparte.
Heard.
The contention of the petitioner is that she filed RC.272/2012 against the respondent for eviction and shown all the boundaries correctly and at the time of preparing decree and judgment eastern boundary is wrongly typed as ‘Lane and H.NO.18-6-601 of Ravinder G’ instead of ‘Lane and H.NO.18-6-601 of Ravinder Goud’ and respondent preferred Rent Appeal with a delay of 34 days in filing appeal and the Hon’ble appellate court was pleased to allow the petition and condoned delay on condition to pay Rs.1000/- to her and the respondent has failed to make payment to her and the Hon’ble appellate court was pleased to dismiss the appeal on 23.11.2015 and the petitioner has filed EP for eviction and EP was returned on the ground that eastern boundary is not tallying and it is just and necessary to amend the eastern boundary.
The petitioner has shown the eastern boundary of petition schedule property as Lane and H.NO.18-6-61 of Ravinder Goud. Whereas, it is typed in the order of RC that eastern boundary as Lane and H.NO.18-6-601 of Ravinder G.
As per the provision of 152 of CPC clerical or arithmetic mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental shop or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.
It is the clerical mistake in order from omission and it can be amended at any time. Office is directed to amend the eastern boundary of schedule of RC order as ‘Lane and H.No.18-6-601 of Ravinder Goud’.
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 3rd day of February, 2017.
FAC PRL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2016
E.P.No.28 of 2012
IN
R.C.No.462 of 2007
Between: Abdullah S/o. Jaffar Mohd (Ahmed) aged about 57 years, Occ: Service, Rep. by his GPA Gulam Sajjad, S/o. Mohd B. Ahmed aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.23-1-354, Jafri Galli, Kotla Ali Jah, Hyderabad. .. Decree holder
And
Mohd Abdul Raheem S/o. Late M.A. Hakeem, aged 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.23-1-432/2, Hussaini Kothi, Kotla Ali Jah, Hyderabad. …. Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.A. K. Mukheed, Advocate for decree holder and of Sri A.K. Agarwal, Advocate for the judgment debtor and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.2.11.2016
E.A.60 of 216 is allowed. EP is advanced from 23.11.2016 to today. The court bailiff has filed report dt.28.10.2016 along with unexecuted warrant stating that the schedule shop was door locked. The learned counsel for decree holder has filed petition under section 151 CPC.
E.A.61 of 2016 is allowed. Issue fresh delivery warrant along with break open lock on payment of process. Call on 23.11.2016.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 2nd day of November, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 6th day of December, 2016.
E.P.No.5 of 2016
IN
O.S.NO.1505 of 1990
Between: K. Karan Babu Goud S/o. Late K. Veeraiah Goud, aged about 60 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o.H.No.1-3-183/17/15, Tallabasthi, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. .. Decree holder
A n d
Cheera Kishore Kumar S/o. Cheera Balappa, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.1-3-183/27/1/B, Tallabasthi, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. .Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.V. Rajeevan, Advocate for decree holder and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for judgment debtor has filed memo through judgment debtor stating that judgment debtor has vacated and handed over vacant and peaceful possession of schedule proeprty to decree holder and handed over key. The decree holder has endorsed that he received key. The learned counsel for decree holder has endorsed no objection. The memo is recorded.
Possession of Scheudle Property isdelivered to decree holder and key handed over. Delivery effected. Hence EP is terminated.
Typed to my dication, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 6th day of December, 2016.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.A. Sreedevi, II Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2014
E.A.No.41 of 2014
IN
E.P.No.8 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.71 of 2011
Between:
1. Smt. Sunita Singh W/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh, aged about 44 years, Occ: Household,
2. Smt. Deepa D/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh, W/o. B. Rakesh, aged about 24 years, Occ: Household,
3. Sri Deepak Singh S/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh. Aged about 20 years, Occ: Student,
4. Sri Rahul Singh S/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh aged about 19 years, occ: Student, all are R/o.11-2-643/1/B, Habeebnagar, Nampally, Hyderabad.
.. Claim Petitioners/Third parties
A n d
1. Smt. D. Anitha W/o. Sri D. Rajender, aged about 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.14-9-1137, Jinsi Chowraha, Hyderabad. …. Respondent No.1/decree holder/Petitioner
2. Rakesh S/o. Late Soran Singh, aged about 34 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.14-9-1134, 1136, Jinsi Chowraha, Takia Hazrath, Circle No.(2), Hyderabad.
... Respondent No.2/Judgment debtor/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Purushotamlaal, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri P. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Counsel for decree holder in EP reported that he has got vakalat on behalf of respondent No.1 in EP. Hence, the same may be considered and request time for filing counter. Respondent No.2 called absent. No representation. Hence respondent No.2 is set exparte. For counter of respondent No.1 call on 20.10.2014.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 26th day of September, 2014
SD/-
SMT. A. SREEDEVI
II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.A. Sreedevi,
II Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2014
E.A.No.39 of 2014
IN
E.P.No.7 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.70 of 2011
Between:
1. Smt. Sunita Singh W/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh, aged about 44 years, Occ: Household,
2. Smt. Deepa D/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh, W/o. B. Rakesh, aged about 24 years, Occ: Household,
3. Sri Deepak Singh S/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh. Aged about 20 years, Occ: Student,
4. Sri Rahul Singh S/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh aged about 19 years, occ: Student, all are R/o.11-2-643/1/B, Habeebnagar, Nampally, Hyderabad.
.. Claim Petitioners/Third parties
A n d
1. Smt. D. Anitha W/o. Sri D. Rajender, aged about 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.14-9-1137, Jinsi Chowraha, Hyderabad. …. Respondent No.1/decree holder/Petitioner
2. Kishan Siingh @ Don S/o. Late Soran Singh aged abouat 42 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.14-9-1134, 1136, Jinsi Chowraha, Takia Hazrath, Circle No.(2), Hyderabad.
... Respondent No.2/Judgment debtor/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Purushotamlaal, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri P. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Counsel for decree holder in EP reported that he has got vakalat on behalf of respondent No.1 in EP. Hence the same may be considered and request time for filing counter. Respondent No.2 called absent. No representation. Hence respondent No.2 is set exparte. For counter of respondent No.1 call on 20.10.2014.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 26th day of September, 2014
SD/-
SMT. A. SREEDEVI
II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.A. Sreedevi, II Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2014
E.A.No.46 of 2014
IN
E.A.No.45 of 2014
IN
E.P.No.10 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.74 of 2011
Between:
1. Smt. Sunita Singh W/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh, aged about 44 years, Occ: Household,
2. Smt. Deepa D/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh, W/o. B. Rakesh, aged about 24 years, Occ: Household,
3. Sri Deepak Singh S/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh. Aged about 20 years, Occ: Student,
4. Sri Rahul Singh S/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh aged about 19 years, occ: Student, all are R/o.11-2-643/1/B, Habeebnagar, Nampally, Hyderabad.
.. Claim Petitioners/Third parties
A n d
1. Smt. D. Anitha W/o. Sri D. Rajender, aged about 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.14-9-1137, Jinsi Chowraha, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent No.1/decree holder/Petitioner
2. D. Brij Pal S/o Late Ugra Ram aged about 48 years, Occ: Bank Employee, R/o.H.No.14-9-1134, 1136, Jinsi Chowraha, Takia Hazrath, Circle No.(2), Hyderabad.
... Respondent No.2/Judgment debtor/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Purushotamlaal, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri P. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Respondent No.1 present and counsel for respondent No.1 reported he has got vakalat for respondent No.1 and the same may be considered and request time for counter and respondent No.2 called absent. No representation. Hence, respondent No.2 is set exparte. For counter of respondent No.1 call on 20.10.2014.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 26th day of September, 2014
SD/-
SMT. A. SREEDEVI
II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.A. Sreedevi, II Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2014
E.A.No.43 of 2014
IN
E.P.No.9 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.73 of 2011
Between:
1. Smt. Sunita Singh W/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh, aged about 44 years, Occ: Household,
2. Smt. Deepa D/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh, W/o. B. Rakesh, aged about 24 years, Occ: Household,
3. Sri Deepak Singh S/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh. Aged about 20 years, Occ: Student,
4. Sri Rahul Singh S/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh aged about 19 years, occ: Student, all are R/o.11-2-643/1/B, Habeebnagar, Nampally, Hyderabad.
.. Claim Petitioners/Third parties
A n d
1. Smt. D. Anitha W/o. Sri D. Rajender, aged about 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.14-9-1137, Jinsi Chowraha, Hyderabad. …. Respondent No.1/decree holder/Petitioner
2. D. Brij Pal S/o Late Ugra Ram aged about 48 years, Occ: Bank Employee, R/o.H.No.14-9-1134, 1136, Jinsi Chowraha, Takia Hazrath, Circle No.(2), Hyderabad.
... Respondent No.2/Judgment debtor/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Purushotamlaal, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri P. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Counsel for decree holder in EP reported that he has got vakalat on behalf of respondent No.1 in EP. Hence the same may be considered and request time for filing counter. Respondent No.2 called absent. No representation. Hence respondent No.2 is set exparte. For counter of respondent No.1 call on 20.10.2014.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 26th day of September, 2014
SD/-
SMT. A. SREEDEVI
II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.A. Sreedevi, II Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2014
E.A.No.43 of 2014
IN
E.P.No.9 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.73 of 2011
Between:
1. Smt. Sunita Singh W/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh, aged about 44 years, Occ: Household,
2. Smt. Deepa D/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh, W/o. B. Rakesh, aged about 24 years, Occ: Household,
3. Sri Deepak Singh S/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh. Aged about 20 years, Occ: Student,
4. Sri Rahul Singh S/o. Late Sri Rajender Singh aged about 19 years, occ: Student, all are R/o.11-2-643/1/B, Habeebnagar, Nampally, Hyderabad.
.. Claim Petitioners/Third parties
A n d
1. Smt. D. Anitha W/o. Sri D. Rajender, aged about 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.14-9-1137, Jinsi Chowraha, Hyderabad. …. Respondent No.1/decree holder/Petitioner
2. D. Brij Pal S/o Late Ugra Ram aged about 48 years, Occ: Bank Employee, R/o.H.No.14-9-1134, 1136, Jinsi Chowraha, Takia Hazrath, Circle No.(2), Hyderabad.
... Respondent No.2/Judgment debtor/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Purushotamlaal, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri P. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Counsel for decree holder in EP reported that he has got vakalat on behalf of respondent No.1 in EP. Hence the same may be considered and request time for filing counter. Respondent No.2 called absent. No representation. Hence respondent No.2 is set exparte. For counter of respondent No.1 call on 20.10.2014.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 26th day of September, 2014
SD/-
SMT. A. SREEDEVI
II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of December, 2016
R.C.No.89 of 2014
Between: Smt. Farazana Begum W/o. Shaik Hameed, Muslim, aged about 65 years, Occ: Household, rep. by her GPA holder Mohd Masood S/o. M.A. Rahman, Muslim, aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o.8-3-713, Imamguda, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Md. Pasha S/o. Md. Madar Sab, Muslim, aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, Shop NO.2, forming part of premises bearing M.No.8-3-166/1/A, Erragadda, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M.A. Murthy, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
I.A.148/2016 is allowed. In pursuance of the order in I.A.148/2016 the further proceedings in the RC are stopped U/s.11(4) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
The respondent is directed to vacate and hand over the physical and vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioner within two months from the date of the order. In case of failure the petitioner is at liberty to execute the order under due process of law. Typed to mydication, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of December, 2016.
FAC II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2016
R.C.No.43 of 2016
Between: Syeda Azmat Sultana W/o. Syed Ismail Sami Ullah aged about 49 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.16-9-687/4/5/6, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Mohammed Qadeer Qureshi S/o. Late Mohammed Jamal @ Jamaluddin, aged about 36 years, Occ: Butcher, R/o.H.No.16-9-307/29, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Syed Mohiuddin Hussain, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Process not paid. Petitioner called absent. No representation. The matter is kept aside till 4.50 p.m.
The case is again called at 4.50 p.m. Petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17th day of October, 2016.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2016
R.C.No.68 of 2016
Between: Md. Rafiuddin Khan S/o. Late Rasheed Nawaz Jung, aged 51 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.3-6-547, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Rahmath Burhan W/o. Late Basith Burhan aged about 55 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.20-3-1132, Deodi Iqbal Ud Dowla, Shahginj, Hyderabad.
2. Chief Commission Land Administration, having its office at Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. The Nazim court of Wards, having its office at Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.
4. The District Collector, Hyderabad District having its office at Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. . Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Md. Idrees Ahmed Khan, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. No representation.
The petition is coming for the hearing of the petitioner and kept aside till 1.55 p.m.
The petitioner is again called at 1.55 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel for petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 16th day of September, 2016.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 21st day of September, 2016
R.C.No.63 of 2016
Between: Syed Yousuf Hussain S/o. Late Syed Asif Hussain aged about 37 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o. 19-2-24/26/13, Ali Bagh, Jahanuma, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d q
1. Mohd Imtiyaz S/o. Late Mohd Yahiya aged about 30 years, Occ: Business,
2. Sameena Begum W/o. Mohammed Imtiyaz aged about 36 years, Occ: household,
Both are R/o. H.No.22-7-71, Pattergatti, Hyderabad. . Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohd Nasrullah Khan, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Process not paid. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 21st day of September, 2016.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2015
I.A.No.20 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.203 of 2014
Between: M.A. Azeez S/o. Mohd Hyder, aged about 70 years, Occ: Business, R/o.19-4-14/2/B/19, Hashamabad, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Mohammed Abdul Quddus S/o. Mohammed Abdul Khader aged about 50 years, Occ: Landlord, R/o.8-4-59/1, Bandlaguda X Road, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent No.1/Petitioner
2. Syed Niamath Hussain @ Qamar S/o. Late Munawar Hussain Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business,
3. Syed Aftab Hussain S/o. Syed Niamath Hussain @ Qamar aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, . Respondents/respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Muhammad Veqar Hussain, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Mirza Suleman Baig, Advcoate for the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is set exparte in the main RC and of Sri Muhammad Vequar Hussain, Advcoate for the respondent No.3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Costs not paid. Condition not complied with. Hence petition is dismissed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 10th day of December, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2015
I.A.No.20 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.203 of 2014
Between: M.A. Azeez S/o. Mohd Hyder, aged about 70 years, Occ: Business, R/o.19-4-14/2/B/19, Hashamabad, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Mohammed Abdul Quddus S/o. Mohammed Abdul Khader aged about 50 years, Occ: Landlord, R/o.8-4-59/1, Bandlaguda X Road, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent No.1/Petitioner
2. Syed Niamath Hussain @ Qamar S/o. Late Munawar Hussain Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business,
3. Syed Aftab Hussain S/o. Syed Niamath Hussain @ Qamar aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, . Respondents/respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Muhammad Veqar Hussain, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Mirza Suleman Baig, Advcoate for the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is set exparte in the main RC and of Sri Muhammad Vequar Hussain, Advcoate for the respondent No.3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the petitioner No.1 who is the respondent No.1 in the main RC Under Rule 8(3) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to set aside the order dt.27.11.2014 setting the petitioner exparte in RC.203/2014 and to permit him to participate in the trial stating that on 8.10.2014 the case posted for first hearing and he could not be present as he was in Nanded to see his relatives and to attend the function, but due to that he had fallen ill and was bed ridden he was not in a position to move, due to which he called his counsel to present on his behalf and on 8.10.2014 his counsel filed a memo before the court and the mater was posted to 27.11.2014 and on that day also he could not attend the court due to ill health and court was pleased to set him exparte.
The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has reported no coutner and respondent No.2 is already set exparte in the main RC. The learned counsel for petitioner represented that he is also appearing for respondent No.3.
The respondent No.1 herein has filed the RC against the petitioner herein and respondents No.2 and 3 herein for eviction and the same was coming for hearing. The respondent No.2 herein is already set exparte in the main RC and on 27.11.2014 the petitioner herein called absent and no representation and he was set exparte and now the petitioner herein has filed the present petition to set aside the exparte dt.27.11.2014.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the petition, I am inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds. However the inconvenience case to the respondent No.1 herein can be reimbursed on imposing costs.
In the result, the petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/- to the respondent No.1 herein on or before 10.12.2015. Or else the petition shall stand dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 1st day of December, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
R.C.No.116 of 2014
Between:
1. Bodu Dhamodar S/o. Late Sri Ramulu, aged about 37 years, Occ: Labour in petrol bunk, R/o.H.No.17-2-1180, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad.
2. Bodu Krishna S/o. Late Sri Ramulu, aged about 34 years, Occ: Unemployee as he is PHC R/o.H.No.17-2-1180, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
Sri Annam Mallesham S/o. A. Kistaiah aged about 55 years, occ: Business, D.No.22-7-582, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad. Proprietor of M/s Annam Satyanarayana Salt Merchant . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Praveen Kumar Challa, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri R.A Krishna, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.26-9-2014
I.A.281/14 is allowed. Call on 16.10.2014.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.16-10-2014
Particualrs filed. Check and put up Call on 4.11.2014
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.17.11.2014
The petitioner has filed particulars. Call on 18.12.2014.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.18.12.2014
For counter and enquiry call on 29.1.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.29-1-2015
Counter not filed. At request of learned counsel for respondent time extended on condition that respondent shall file counter if any on the next date of adjournment. Call on 10.2.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.10-2-2015
Counter not filed. Time extended for counter on condition that respondent shall file counter on the next date of adjournment as the matter is coming for filing counter of respondent since a long time. Call on 18.2.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.18.2.2015
Counter not filed. Time extended for counter. Call on 20.2.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.20.2.2015
Counter not filed. Time extended for counter. Call on 3.3.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.3.3.2015
Counter not filed. Time extended for counter. Call on 16.3.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.16.3.2015
Counter not filed. Time extended for counter. Call on 23.3.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.23-3-2015 Counter filed. For enquiry call on 15.4.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.15.4.2015
Both not ready. Call on 15.6.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.15.6.2015
Both not ready. Call on 30.7.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.30-7-2015
At request of learned counsel for petitioner time extended on condition that petitioner shall get ready for evidence on the next date of adjournment. Call on 11.8.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.11-8-2015 Petitioner called absent. No representation. Learned counsel for respondent is present. The case is kept aside till 3.00 p.m.
The matter is again called at 3.00 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel for petitioner called absent. No representation. Learned counsel
for respondent is present. Time extended on payment of costs of RS.100/-
for the evidence of petitioner. Call on 20.8.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.20-8-2015
Costs paid. Chief examination of PW.1 filed. For affirmation and for cross examination of PW.1 call on 31.8.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.31-8-2015
PW.1 is present. Learned counsel for respondent is present. At the request of petitioner time extended on condition that petitioner shall get ready for affirmation and for marking of documents, for cross examination on the next date of adjournment. Call on 7.9.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.7-9-2015
PW.1 is present. Learned counsel for petitioner is present. PW.1 sworned and affirmed. For continuation of chief examination of PW.1 call on 14.9.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.14-9-2015
PW.1 is present. Learned counsel for respondent is present. At request of learned counsel for petitioner time extended for continuation of chief examination of PW.1 on condition that petitioner shall get ready for further chief examination on the next date of adjournment call on 23.9.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.23-9-2015
PW.1 is absent. At request of learned counsel for petitioner time extended on condition that petitioner shall get ready for further chief examination on the next date of adjournment call on 14.10.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.14.10.2015
For further chief examination of PW.1 call on 27.10.2015
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.27-10-2015
PW.1 is present. At request of petitioner time extended for continuation of chief examination of PW.1 on condition that petitioner shall get ready for further chief examination on the next date of adjournment call on 28.10.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.4-11-2015
The learned counsel for respondent has filed petition under Order 18(3) CPC. I.A. pending call on 13.11.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.9-2-2016
I.A.25/16 is allowed. For the evidence of petitioner call on 19.2.2016.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.19-2-2016
At request of learned counsel for petitioner time extended on condition that petitioner shall get ready for evidence on the next date of adjournment as it is an identified case. Call on 29.2.2016.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.29-2-2016
PW.1 called absent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed petition under Order 17 Rule 1 r/w sec.151 CPC stating that due to ill health the PW.1 is absent and requested time for adjournment. The petitioner No.2 has filed the afdiavit along with petition, but petitioner No.2 called absent. There is no signature of deponent in the affidavit which was attested by the advocate. The signature of the advocate who attested the affidavit is also the same who filed the petition. The affidavit is not valid and the petition is not proper and there are no bonafides in the petition and the petition is dismissed.
Time extended on condition that PW.1 shall get ready for evidence on the next date of adjournment, or else no further time shall be extended call on 2.3.2016.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.2-3-2016
PW.1 recalled, sworned and examined in further chief in part. Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 marked. The learned counsel for petitioner intends to mark the original documents for which the copies were already filed in the court earlier. But the learned counsel for respondent has objected for marking the same stating that the documents were not filed along with receive documents petition. For hearing of both counsels call on 8.3.2016.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.8-3-2016
Petitioner No.1 is present. Petitioner has represented that his counsel has been to Pargi and requested time for hearing. The learned counsel for respondent is present. The case is coming for the hearing of both counsels on request of the further marking of documents. Petitioners are directed to get ready for evidence on the next date of adjournment, as it is an identified case call on 14.3.2016.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.14-3-2016
PW.1 called absent. The learned junior counsel Ms.Durga represented that her senior counsel is not in the station and requested time for hearing. Time extended for hearing call on 16.3.2016.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.16-3-2016
PW.1 is present. At request of learned counsel for petitioner time extended on condition that petitioner shall get ready for evidence on the next date of adjournment, as it is an identified case call on 22.3.2016.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.22-3-2016
PW.1 is absent. At request of learned counsel for petitioner time extended on payment of costs of Rs.100/- and on condition that petitioner shall get ready for further chief examination on the next date of adjournment, as it is an identified case call on 29.3.2016.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.29-3-2016
Costs not paid. PW.1 is present. The learned counsel for petitioner has filed memo along with original document stating that the petitioner has already filed Xerox copy of the document. Issue notice to the learned counsel for respondent. For continuation of chief examination of PW.1 call on 31.3.2016.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.31-3-2016
Heard both counsels on the document filed by the petitioner along with memo. For orders call on 6.4.2016.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.11-4-2016
The learned counsel for petitioner intends to mark the original document which was filed along with memo stating that he has already filed Xerox copy of the said document. The learned counsel for the respondent has objected for marking the same stating that the petitioner has to file the original document by way of petition. .
As per the Rule 7(4) of RC Rules parties or their counsels shall at first hearing of the case and as per the Rule 7(5) of RC Rules documentary evidence which has not been produced under (4) shall not be received at any subsequent stage unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the controller for the non production.
The petitioner has to show cause why he has not filed the original document at the stage of hearing and with the permission of the controller only the original document filed by the petitioner at the subsequent stage can be marked.
With the above reasons the objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent is sustained.
For continuation of chief examination of PW.1 call on 18.4.2016.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.18-4-2016
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the continuation of chief examination of PW.1 and kept aside till 4.50 p.m.
The case is again called at 4.50 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel
for petitioner called absent.
No representation. Learned counsel for respondent is present. Time extended on condition that petitioner shall get ready for evidence on the next date of adjournment, as it is an identified case call on 20.4.2016.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.20-4-2016
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the continuation of chief examination of petitioner and kept aside till 1.25 p.m. The case is again called at 1.25 p.m. Petitioner called absent. No representation. Learned counsel for respondent is present. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court .
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2016
I.A.No.121 of 2016
IN
R.C.No.113 of 2014
Between: Hussain Ali Kheradmand S/o. Late Bansilal Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 20-1-26, Inside Old Bridge, Puranapool, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Koka Manoj S/o. Late Haji Mohammed aged about 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o.10-2-270/C2, West Marredpally, Secunderabad.
2. Batkal Narayan Reddy S/o. Not known to the petitioner Aged Major, Good will café R/o.21-4-825/1 to 4, Purana Pool, Hyderabad. . Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri P. Premraj, Advcoate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent No.1 in the main RC, under Order 18 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC praying the court to set aside the order dt.12.4.2016 forfeiting the right of cross examination of PW.1 by recalling the witness stating that the RC was coming for further cross examination of PW.1 on the last date of hearing i.e., 12.4.2016 and on that day in the call work itself they requested for pass over to cross examine PW.1 further, however PW.1 was not available during the call work and as the court was busy with other trial matter, their counsel came twice and went to other court for attend work in the said courts and by the time he came for the third time, the RC was adjourned by forfeiting the right of cross examination of PW.1 and immediately his counsel made a representation before the court on which the court directed to file appropriate petition and no prejudice will be caused to the other side if the order forfeiting the right of cross examination of PW.1 dt.12.4.2016 is set aside and they may have chance to cross examine PW.1.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that on 12.4.2016 the court waited till 1.55 p.m., and the learned counsel
for petitioner did not turn up for further cross examination of PW.1 and
hence the court treated the further cross examination of PW.1 nil and closed the petitioners’ side evidence and posted the matter for respondent side evidence therein and the petitioners are habituated of filing reopen and recall petition for the second time before the court with a malafide intention to harass the landlord and to cause irreparable loss and injury to them and the petition filed by the petitioners is misconceives and misrepresented and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The respondent herein has filed the RC against the petitioner herein and others for eviction. The case is coming for cross examination of PW.1 since a long time and on 12.4.2016 the court waited till 1.55 p.m., and petitioner herein called absent and PW.1 sworned for further cross examination and the learned counsel for petitioner herein did not turn up to further cross examine the PW.1 and hence the cross examination of PW.1 is treated as nil and the learned counsel for respondent herein has reported no further evidence and the matter is posted for the evidence of petitioner herein. Though sufficient time is granted and conditional order passed the petitioner herein has not adduced any evidence and filed the present petition at a belated stage i.e., nearly five months after closing the further cross examination of PW.1.
However, I am inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give one more opportunity to the petitioner herein. The inconvenience caused to the respondent herein can be reimbursed on imposing costs.
In the result, the petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.100/- to the respondent herein on or before 25.10.2016. Or else the petition shall stand dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 29th day of September, 2016
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2016
I.A.No.120 of 2016
IN
R.C.No.113 of 2014
Between: Hussain Ali Kheradmand S/o. Late Bansilal Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 20-1-26, Inside Old Bridge, Puranapool, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Koka Manoj S/o. Late Haji Mohammed aged about 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o.10-2-270/C2, West Marredpally, Secunderabad.
2. Batkal Narayan Reddy S/o. Not known to the petitioner Aged Major, Good will café R/o.21-4-825/1 to 4, Purana Pool, Hyderabad. . Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri P. Premraj, Advcoate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent No.1 in the main RC, under section 151 CPC praying the court to set aside the order dt.12.4.2016 forfeiting the right of cross examination of PW.1 by reopening the evidence of petitioner stating that the RC was coming for further cross examination of PW.1 on the last date of hearing i.e., 12.4.2016 and on that day in the call work itself they requested for pass over to cross examine PW.1 further, however PW.1 was not available during the call work and as the court was busy with other trial matter, their counsel came twice and went to other court for attend work in the said courts and by the time he came for the third time, the RC was adjourned by forfeiting the right of cross examination of PW.1 and immediately his counsel made a representation before the court on which the court directed to file appropriate petition and no prejudice will be caused to the other side if the order forfeiting the right of cross examination of PW.1 dt.12.4.2016 is set aside and they may have chance to cross examine PW.1.
The respondents filed counter denying the petition averments stating that on 12.4.2016 the court waited till 1.55 p.m., and the learned counsel
for petitioner did not turn up for further cross examination of PW.1 and
hence the court treated the further cross examination of PW.1 nil and closed the petitioners’ side evidence and posted the matter for respondent side evidence therein and the petitioners are habituated of filing reopen and recall petition for the second time before the court with a malafide intention to harass the landlord and to cause irreparable loss and injury to them and the petition filed by the petitioners is misconceives and misrepresented and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The respondent herein has filed the RC against the petitioner herein and others for eviction. The case is coming for cross examination of PW.1 since a long time and on 12.4.2016 the court waited till 1.55 p.m., and petitioner herein called absent and PW.1 sworned for further cross examination and the learned counsel for petitioner herein did not turn up to further cross examine the PW.1 and hence the cross examination of PW.1 is treated as nil and the learned counsel for respondent herein has reported no further evidence and the matter is posted for the evidence of petitioner herein. Though sufficient time is granted and conditional order passed the petitioner herein has not adduced any evidence and filed the present petition at a belated stage i.e., nearly five months after closing the further cross examination of PW.1.
However, I am inclined to allow the petition in the interest of justice and on justifiable grounds to give one more opportunity to the petitioner herein. The inconvenience caused to the respondent herein can be reimbursed on imposing costs.
In the result, the petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.100/- to the respondent herein on or before 25.10.2016. Or else the petition shall stand dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 29th day of September, 2016
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi,
I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2016
R.C.No.124 of 2015
Between: Mohammed Iqbal S/o. Late Shaik Bade Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.32, Sog Bowli, Suleman Nagar, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Syed Parvez Hussain Kazmi S/o. Syed Alamdar Hussain Kazmi, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.22-7-531, Metro Agarbatti, Karkhana, Noor Khan bazaar, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Syed Nasseb Faheem, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri S. Pawan Kumar, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Costs not paid. The case is kept aside till 1.20 p.m.
The case is again called at 1.20 p.m. Petitioner called absent. No representation. Learned counsel for respondent is present. The case is coming for the evidence of the petitioner. Though sufficient time is granted petitioner has not adduced evidence. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of September, 2016.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2016
R.C.No.163 of 2015
Between: Kodarapu Muralidhar S/o. Late K. Ramanaiah aged 71 years, Occ: Business, R/o.15-2-302/A, Kishangunj, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Kailash Chander Kedia S/o. Indermal Kedia aged 65 years, Occ: Business, doing business at shop No.15-2-302/3, Kishangunj, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R. Omprakash, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioner intends to mark rental deed on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondent objected for marking the same stating that the rental deed requires registration and stamp duty and penalty.
The learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the amendment in Registration Act is w.e.f., 1.4.1999, but the rental deed is dt.1.2.1998 and for 11 months and it does not require registration and even if it requires stamp duty as per serial No.31(a)(i) of Schedule 1 A of Indian
Stamp Act, he has to pay Rs.330/- stamp duty.
The learned counsel for respondent argued that Rental Deed requires
Registration and Stamp duty of Rs.3000/-.
The learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision in
New Osmangunj Extention Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Hyderabad
Vs. Navbharath Restaurant, Hyderabad wherein the Hon’ble court held that in lease of immovable property even below one year is made compulsory registered by AP Amendment to the Registration Act only with effect from 1.4.1999 by inCorporation of a Clause in section 17.
The learned counsel for respondent has relied upon the decision in K. Sai
Sridevi Vs. Alluri Narasimha Raju and others reported in 1998(5) ALD 330.
The facts of that case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the period of lease agreement is ten years.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the Rental Deed dt.1.2.1998 does not require registration, but it requires stamp duty and penalty. The petitioner is directed to pay the stamp duty and penalty for the document. Call on 8.9.2016.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 31st day of August, 2016.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2016
I.A.No.121 of 2016
IN
R.C.No.33 of 2015
Between: Balchand S/o. Late Lalchand age: 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o.14-5-371/2, Bedarwadi, Shainayathgunj Road, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Rahul Jain S/o. Rajender Kumar Jain age: 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Rahul Medical & General Stores 14-5-371/1, Bedarwadi, Shainayathgunj, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Rahul Dev S, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri V.M. Shastry, Advcoate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules praying the court to receive the documents stating that he need the petition schedule premises for setting up PVC pipes business for his son, who is trained in the business and presently unemployed and he could not file the training certificate at the inception of the petition as the same was mixed up with other documents with his son and could not be traced out at the relevant time and if the said document is not permitted to be filed he would suffer irreparable loss and injury and no prejudice will be caused to the respondent.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the document which is filed by the petitioner is not relevant to the present case and it is not material for the case and only to prolong the matter and to harass the respondent, the petitioner filed the present petition and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard.
The petitioner herein has filed the above RC against the respondent herein for eviction and the same is coming for cross examination of PW.1 and at this stage the petitioner herein has filed the present petition to receive the document.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that:
“Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
Mere receiving of document will not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of document at the time of evidence. .
In the result, the petition is allowed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 16th day of August, 2016.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2015
R.C.No.162 of 2015
Between: Sri Shailender Singh, S/o. late Uday Narayan Singh aged about 50 years, Occ: Service R/o.H.No.21-1-23, Nayapul, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Sri Mohd Salman Khan S/o. Late Mohd Amjad Khan aged about 28 years, Occ: Business, P.No.21-1-73 Part, Nayapul, Hyderabad.
. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Punna Ravi, Advocate for petitioner and of respondent set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 2.00 p.m.
The case is again called at 2.00 p.m. Petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 10th day of September, 2015.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2016
R.C.No.116 of 2014
Between:
1. Bodu Dhamodar S/o. Late Sri Ramulu, aged about 37 years, Occ: Labour in petrol bunk, R/o.H.No.17-2-1180, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad.
2. Bodu Krishna S/o. Late Sri Ramulu, aged about 34 years, Occ: Unemployee as he is PHC
R/o.H.No.17-2-1180, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
Sri Annam Mallesham S/o. A. Kistaiah aged about 55 years, occ: Business, D.No.22-7-582, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad. Proprietor of M/s Annam Satyanarayana Salt Merchant . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Praveen Kumar Challa, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri R.A Krishna, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the continuation of chief examination of petitioner and kept aside till 1.25 p.m. The case is again called at 1.25 p.m. Petitioner called absent. No representation. Learned counsel for respondent is present. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court ON THIS THE 20th day of April, 2016.
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2014
R.C.No.272 of 2010
Between:
1. Shobha Devi W/o. Late Surender Sanghi, aged about 5 years, Occ: House wife,
2. Sandeep Sanghi S/o, Late Surender Sanghi, aged about 34 years, Occ: Business, 3.Naresh Sanghi S/o. Late Surender Sanghi aged 30 years, Occ: Business,
4. Nirai Sanghi S/o, Late Surender Sanghi, aged about 28 years, Occ: Business,
All R/o. 21-7-254, Charkman, Hyderabad. …. Petitioners
And
Mr. Shanker S/o. Sri Lakshmi aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.21-2-532, Charkaman, Hyderabad.
…… Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Trilok B., Shogal, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri Sanjay Joshi, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The matter is coming for the cross examination of PW.1. The matter is kept aside till 4.40 p.m. It seems petitioners have no interest in the matter. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of June, 2014.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2016
R.C.No.249 of 2014
Between:
1. Mrs. Susheela Bai W/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju aged about 69 years, Occ: Household,
2. Ashok Kumar Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business,
3. Nand Kishore Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, aged about 44 years, Occ: Business,
4. Rajesh Kumar Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, aged about 42 years, Occ: Business,
5. Laxminivas Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, aged about 64 years, Occ: Business, rep. by his GPA holder Kamal Kishore Jaju, S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, Occ: Business,
6. Brij Gopal Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, aged about 59 years, Occ: Business,
7. Kamal Kishore Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, aged about 51 years, Occ: Business
All are R/o.20-2-9 to 12, Old Kaburtar Khanana, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
1. K. Bheem Raj S/o. Late K. Gandaiah aged about 57 years, Prioprietor of M/s.Nataraja Handicrafts, M.No.21-3-205, Moosa Bowli, Hyderabad.
2. K. Narsing Rao S/o. Late K. Gandaiah aged about 56 years, Occ: Not known R/o.23-4-236, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad. . Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Anil Kumar, Advocate for petitioners and of respondents set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of PW.1 and kept aside till 1.45 p.m.
The case is again called at 1.45 p.m. Petitioners and learned counsel for petitioners called absent. No representation. It seems petitioners have no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of February, 2016
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2016
R.C.No.248 of 2014
Between:
1. Mrs. Susheela Bai W/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju aged about 69 years, Occ: Household,
2. Ashok Kumar Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business,
3. Nand Kishore Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, aged about 44 years, Occ: Business,
4. Rajesh Kumar Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, aged about 42 years, Occ: Business,
5. Laxminivas Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, aged about 64 years, Occ: Business, rep. by his GPA holder Kamal Kishore Jaju, S/o. Late Govindram
Jaju, Occ: Business,
6. Brij Gopal Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, aged about 59 years, Occ: Business,
7. Kamal Kishore Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, aged about 51 years, Occ: Business
All are R/o.20-2-9 to 12, Old Kaburtar Khanana, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
1. K. Bheem Raj S/o. Late K. Gandaiah aged about 57 years, Prioprietor of M/s.Nataraja Handicrafts, M.No.21-3-205, Moosa Bowli, Hyderabad.
2. K. Eshwar S/o. Late K. Gandaiah aged about 41 years, Occ: Not known R/o.23-4-236, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad. . Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Anil Kumar, Advocate for petitioners and of respondents set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of PW.1 and kept aside till 1.45 p.m.
The case is again called at 1.45 p.m. Petitioners and learned counsel for petitioners called absent. No representation. It seems petitioners have no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of February, 2016
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2016
R.C.No.247 of 2014
Between:
1. Mrs. Susheela Bai W/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju aged about 69 years, Occ: Household,
2. Ashok Kumar Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business,
3. Nand Kishore Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, aged about 44 years, Occ: Business,
4. Rajesh Kumar Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, aged about 42 years, Occ: Business,
5. Laxminivas Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, aged about 64 years, Occ: Business, rep. by his GPA holder Kamal Kishore Jaju, S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, Occ: Business,
6. Brij Gopal Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, aged about 59 years, Occ: Business,
7. Kamal Kishore Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, aged about 51 years, Occ: Business
All are R/o.20-2-9 to 12, Old Kaburtar Khanana, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
K. Bheem Raj S/o. Late K. Gandaiah aged about 57 years, Prioprietor of M/s.Nataraja Handicrafts, M.No.21-3-205, Moosa Bowli, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Anil Kumar, Advocate for petitioners and of respondent set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of PW.1 and kept aside till 1.45 p.m.
The case is again called at 1.45 p.m. Petitioners and learned counsel for petitioners called absent. No representation. It seems petitioners have no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of February, 2016
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2016
R.C.No.246 of 2014
Between:
1. Mrs. Susheela Bai W/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju aged about 69 years, Occ: Household,
2. Ashok Kumar Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business,
3. Nand Kishore Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, aged about 44 years, Occ: Business,
4. Rajesh Kumar Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, aged about 42 years, Occ: Business,
5. Laxminivas Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, aged about 64 years, Occ: Business, rep. by his GPA holder Kamal Kishore Jaju, S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, Occ: Business,
6. Brij Gopal Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, aged about 59 years, Occ: Business,
7. Kamal Kishore Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju, aged about 51 years, Occ: Business
All are R/o.20-2-9 to 12, Old Kaburtar Khanana, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
K. Bheem Raj S/o. Late K. Gandaiah aged about 57 years, Prioprietor of M/s.Nataraja Handicrafts, M.No.21-3-205, Moosa Bowli, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Anil Kumar, Advocate for petitioners and of respondent set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of PW.1 and kept aside till 1.45 p.m.
The case is again called at 1.45 p.m. Petitioners and learned counsel for petitioners called absent. No representation. It seems petitioners have no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of February, 2016
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2015
R.C.No.230 of 2014
Between: Ram P. Gupta @ pirlamarla Ramloo S/o. Late P. Easwaraiah, aged about 72 years, Occ: Business, R/o. presently residing 553 Hampton Hill Road, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, USA. represented by his GPA P. Vittal S/o. Late P. Easwaraiah, aged about 75 years, Occ: Business, R/o.6-3-25, SivajiNagar, Sangareddy, Medak District. …. Petitioner
And
M. J. Jagadeshwar S/o. Not known to the petitioner aged about 60 years, Occ: charted accountant Off.at H.No.5-8-354, shop No.610, 6th Floor, Ratna block Raghava ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad..
…… Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Niklesh Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Process not paid. Petitioner called absent. GPA representing petitioner called absent. No representation. Though sufficient time is granted the petitioner has not resubmitted the defficienty of process fee. It seems petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of September, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi,
I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2015
R.C.No.25 of 2015
Between: Mrs. N.P. Vijaya Laxmi W/o. Late N. Pitambar Naidu aged about 50 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.4-1-414, Abids, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
Ashfaq Ansari S/o. Late Mansoor Ahmed Ansari aged 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o.11-3-551, Behind Anwar ul uloom Colelge, Mallepally, Hyderabad.
…… Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Chandra Shekar, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Shivshankar Choudry, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 3.20 p.m.
The case is again called at 3.20 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel for petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems the petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 5th day of October, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2015
R.C.No.420 of 2011
Between: Smt. Shakuntala Bai W/o. Late Om Prakash Aged 56 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.21-7-427, Shakar Kotha, Charkaman, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
Papaiah S/o. Yellaiah, aged 57 years, Occ: Washerman, tenant in part of 21-7-428, Shakar Kotha, Charkaman, Hyderabad.
…… Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Farook Salahuddin, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri J. Nanda Kishore, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioner has filed memo stating that the matter is settled out of court and not pressing the case. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of November, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2015
R.C.No.164 of 2013
Between: M.Y. Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietor Mohd Yaqoob S/o. Late Mohd Yousuf aged about 64 years, Occ: Business, tenant in premises bearing No.4-1-882/1/39 GF RBVR Reddy Hostel Shopping Complex Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.. …. Petitioner
And
Raja Bahadur Venkata Rama Reddy Educational Socity rep. by its Secretary Sri S.V.N. Reddy S/o. S. Ramchandra Reddy, aged 75 years, having its office at Hanuman Tekdi, Abids, Hyderabad.
…… Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.T. Ghori, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Sanjay Rao, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 1.40 p.m.
The case is again called at 1.40 p.m. Petitioner called absent.
No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of September, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2016
R.C.No.278 of 2015
Between: G. Vinod Siingh S/o. Late Kuwar Singh aged about 29 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.14-10-660, Lala Talim, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
Yaman Singh S/o. Ratan Singh aged about 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.13-1-400, Razdar Khanpet, Hyderabad and also H.No.13-1-231/A/1, Razdar Khanpet, Hyderabad.
…… Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Kishore Singh, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Vigneshwar Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner and respondent and their counsels are present.
Both parties filed joint memo stating that respondent has delivered the vacant and physical possession of petition schedule property to the petitioner and the petitioner is withdrawing the petition as not pressed and parties have settled the matter out of court.
The memo is recorded. In view of the memo filed by the both paries the RC is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 3rd day of June, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2016
R.C.No.277 of 2015
Between: G. Vinod Siingh S/o. Late Kuwar Singh aged about 29 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.14-10-660, Lala Talim, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
Yaman Singh S/o. Ratan Singh aged about 54 years, Occ: Business, C/o.Mulgi No.13-1-231/A/1, Razdar Khanpet, Hyderabad. R/o. H.No.13-1-400, Razdar Khanpet,
Hyderabad. …… Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Kishore Singh, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Vigneshwar Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner and respondent and their counsels are present.
Both parties filed joint memo stating that respondent has delivered the vacant and physical possession of petition schedule property to the petitioner and the petitioner is withdrawing the petition as not pressed and parties have settled the matter out of court.
The memo is recorded. In view of the memo filed by the both paries the RC is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 3rd day of June, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2014
R.C.No.465 of 2011
Between: Smt. Laxmi W/o. Late Yadagiri aged 64 years, Occ: Business, Mulgi No.21-2-532, Charkaman, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
1. Shoba Devi W/o. Late Surender Sanghi, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Housewife
2. Sandeep sanghi S/o. Late Surender Sanghi aged about 34 years, Occ: Business
3. Naresh Sanghi S/o. Late Surender Sanghi aged about 30 years, Occ: Business,
4. Niraj Sanghi S/o. Late Surender Sanghi, aged about 28 years, Occ: Business, all are R/o.21-7-254, Charkaman, Hyderabad.
…… Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Vasanth Rao Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Trilok B. Sahgal, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The matter is ket aside till 4.40 p.m. It seems petitioner has no interest in the matter.
Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of June, 2014.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
R.C.No.113 of 2014
Between: Koka Manoj S/o. Late Bansilal aged about 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o.20-1-26, Inside Old bridge, Purana Pool, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Hussain Ali Kharadmand S/o. Late Haji Mohammed aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o.10-2-270/C2 West Marredpally, Secunderabad.
2. Batkal Narayan Reddy S/o. Not known to the petitioner aged Major, Good Will Café, 21-4-825/1 to 4, Purana Pool, Hyderabad. . Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Premraj, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.6-7-2015
Costs paid. PW.1 sworned and examined in cross in part. At request of learned counsel for respondent time extended for continuation of cross examinaiton of PW.1. Call on 22.7.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.3-9-2015
PW.1 is present. Learned counsel for petitioner is present. Respondent and learned counsel for respondent called absent. The case is coming for further cross examination of PW.1 and kept aside till 1.20 p.m. The case is again called at 1.20 p.m. PW.1 is present. Respondent and learned counsel for respondent called absent. No representation. PW.1 sworned for further cross examination. The learned counsel for respondent did not turn up to further cross examine PW.1. Hence the further cross exaiantion of PW.1 is treated as nil. At request of learned counsel for petitioner time extended for further evidence. Call on 11.9.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.11-9-2015
The learned counsel for petitioner has reported no further evidence. Hence the petitioner’s side evidence is closed. For respondent’s side evidence call on 23.9.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.3-11-2015
Respondent called absent. Learned counsel for petitioner called absent. Costs not paid. The learned counsel for respondent has filed petitions under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w section 151 CPC and U/sec.151 CPC. IA pending call on 17.11.2015.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.12-4-2016
PW.1 is present. The case is coming for the further cross examination of PW.1. Learned counsel for respondent did not turn up to further cross examine PW.1. The case is kept aside till 1.55 p.m.
The case is again called at 1.55 p.m. PW.1 is present. Learned counsel for respondent called absent.
PW.1 sworned for further cross examination. The learned counsel
for respondent did not turn up to further cross examine the witness.
Hence the further cross examination of PW.1 is treated as nil. The learned counsel for petitioner has reported no further evidence. Hence the petitioner’s side evidence is closed. For respondent’s side evidence call on 21.4.2016.
Written and pronounced by me in open court .
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.A. Sreedevi, II Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2014
R.C.No.113 of 2014
Between: Koka Manoj S/o. Late Bansilal aged about 47 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.20-1-26, Inside Old bridge, Purana Pool, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Hussain Ali Kharadmand S/o. Late Haji Mohammed aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o.10-2-270/C2 West Marredpally, Secunderabad.
2. Batkal Narayan Reddy S/o. Not known to the petitioner aged Major, Good Will Café, 21-4-825/1 to 4, Purana Pool, Hyderabad. . Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Premraj, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
PW.1 present and chief affidavit admitted. Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are marked. For cross of PW.1 posted to 2.12.2014.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 28th day of November, 2014
SD/-
SMT. A. SREEDEVI
II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5th day of May, 2016
E.P.No.30 of 2010
IN
R.C.568 of 1998
Between:
1. Mohd Jani S/o. Mohd Ibrahim, age: 48 years, Occ: Govt. Employee,
2. Mohd Chand(died per legal representative Bilquis Begum W/o. Mohd Chand, age: 32 years, Occ: household,
Both are R/o.H.No.22-1-484, adjacent to Almas Masjid Kali Qabar, Osmanpura, Hyderabad.
…. Decree holders.
AND
1. Mohd Abdul Gafoor (died per LR)
2. Mahmood Khan (died per LRs)
3. Md Khaja (died per LRs)
4. Naseem Banu W/o. Late M.A. Gaffar, Age 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o. 22-1-601, Noor Khan Bazar, Hyderabad.
5. Md. Ali Jan S/o. M.A. Ghafoor, Age: 24 years, Occ: Business,
6. Shabana Begum W/o. Md. Abdullah, Age: 25 years, Occ: House hold, R/o.H.NO.18-3-13/6/40, Hashambad, Chadrayangutta, Hyderabad.
7. Md. Husain S/o. M.A. Ghafoor, Age: 23 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.NO.22-3-150/1/A, Yaqutpura, Hyderabad.
8. Shahana Begum D/o. M.A. Ghafoor, Age: 19 years, Occ: Nil,
9. Mohd Omer S/o. M.A. Ghafoor, Age: 18 years, Occ: Student,
10. Md. Abu Baker S/o. M.A. Ghafoor, Age: 15 years, Student,
11. Md. YOusuf S/o. M.A. Ghafoor, Age: 13 years, Occ: Student,
12. Maryam Begum D/o. M.A. Ghafoor, Age: 12 years, student,
13. Asia Begum D/o. M.A. Ghafoor, Age: 11 years, Occ: Student,
14. Md. Mustafa S/o. M.A. Ghafoor, Age: 8 years,
Occ: Student,
15. Mohammadi Begum D/o. M.A. Ghafoor, Age: 5 years, Student
Judgment debtors No.10 to 15 are minors and are under the guardianship of their mother and natural guardian. Judgment debtors were added as per the orders in E.A.No.3/2009, dt.7.7.2009.
.. Judgment debtors
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Shaik Mahmood Ali, Advocate for Decree holders and of Sri Moinuddin Hussain, Advocate for the judgment debtors and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Court bailiff has filed report along with executed warrant stating that possession of schedule house was delivered to decree holder. Delivery receipt filed. Delivery effected. Hence EP is terminated.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 5th day of May, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 27th day of April, 2016
I.A.No.127 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.295 of 2014
Between: Ms. Rani Pawa D/o. Late C.L. Pawa aged 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.5-4-455/3, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, rep. by her SPA Smt. Bindu Puri, W/o. Pradeep Puri, aged: 47 years, Occ: Business R/o. As above. …. Petitioner/Respondent
And
M/s. HOTEL PALACE, a regd. Partnership Firm rep. by its Managing Partner Dr.G. Ramakrishna S/o. Late G. Vittal Rao Hidu, aged 55 years, Occ: Business,
M.No.5-4-455/1 to 6, situated at Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. …… Respondent/Petitioner
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Shyam Sunder Lahoti, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition is filed under Rule 32 of CRP read with section 151 CPC praying the court to permit the petitioner herein, who is Special Power of Attorney holder to participate and defend the matter on behaf of the petitioner, who is the respondent in the main RC, stating that she is the Special Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein has executed SPA on 12.6.2015 in her favour and it is still subsisting and continuing and has not been revoked.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the respondent is the managing partner of the respondent firm and as per the affidavit the petitioner herein as SPA dt.12.6.2015, but the alleged SPA reveals that it was executed on 6.12.2015 and the petition is filed in the month of July and the alleged SPA is fabricated and it cannot be looked into and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard both sides.
The respondent herein has filed the RC against the petitioner herein for fixation of fair rent and during the pendency of the RC the petitioner herein has filed the petition to permit the SPA holder to represent on her behalf. As per the contention of the petitioner herein Special Power of Attorney was executed on 12.6.2015. The contention of the respondent herein is that the SPA seems it was executed on 6.12.2015 and the petitioner herein has filed the SPA with a future date and it is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein has filed the affidavit of the petitioner under Rule 33 of CRP stating that she executed SPA dt.12.6.2015 in favour of her own sister by name Smt. Bindu Puri, to defend the matter and it is still subsisting and continuing and she has not revoked and earlier also she gave SPA to defend an earlier RC and as per the practice adopted and prevalent in the United States of America, the month is mentioned before the date followed by the year and the SPA
before the court is dt.12.6.2015 and the same is styled as 6/12/2015 and
since the same is executed in Ohio, America it is to be read as June 12th 2015 and not 6th December 2015. Earlier the petitioner has filed SPA executed by her in favour of Bindu Puri in RC.391/2010 and that was allowed by the court. I have perused the SPA filed in RC.391/210. It was executed in Ohio, USA on 18.1.2011, wherein the date is mentioned before the month followed by the year. It is not mentioned the month before the date as stated by the petitioner in the present petition. The SPA filed by the petitioner in RC.391/2010 is shown the date 18.1.2011, but not January 18th, 2011 which is different to the style of the date mentioned in the present SPA said to have been styled as 6.12.2015 shown in SPA. Hence by referring SPA filed by the petitioner in RC.391/2010, it cannot be said that the contention of the petitioner in the present petition is genuine one with regard to mentioning of date, month and year. There are no bonafides in the petition. Hence the petition is not maintainable.
In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 27th day of April, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2016
I.A.No.297 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.33 of 2015
Between: Rahul Jain S/o. Rajender Kumar Jain aged 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Rahul Medical & General Stores, 14-5-371/1, Bedarwadi, Shainayathgunj, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
Balchand S/o. Late Lalchand Aged 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o.14-5-371/2 Bedarwadi Shainayathgunj Road Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. …… Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Mallikarjuna Shastry, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M/s Rahul Dev S, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 151 CPC praying the court to direct the landlord/respondent/petitioner to sign and put his signature on relevant papers which are required to be submitted for the purpose of renewal of drug license stating that he is the tenant of the respondent for a period of 11 years commencing from 5.8.2010 and the lease period is still in existence and up to 4.8.2021 and he is running medical shop in petition premises under the name and style of M/s Rahul Medical and General Stores and the respondent being a landlord of petitioner is bound to give permission or authorization for the competent authorities to renew the Drug license for running the said shop and if the landlord fails to put the signature on necessary form for the purpose of renew the drug license the petitioner will be put to loss and cause hardship which cannot be compensated.
The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments stating that no lease deed much less for 11 years has been executed by the respondent and as such he is not bound to sign any document for renewal of license and no documentary proof about the alleged fabricated lease deed has been filed by the petitioner to substantiate the said fact and the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in the month of February 2015 and no rent has been paid by the petitioner since May 2012 or since February 2012 and moreover a petition U/s.11(1) of RC Act was filed on 2.9.2015 and about five adjournments have been given, but the petitioner neither filed counter nor deposited the monthly rent and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
No oral evidence adduced by both the parties and no documents were marked on behalf of both the parties.
Heard.
The contention of the petitioner is that he is the tenant of respondent herein for a period of 11 years commencing from 5.8.2010 and the lease period is still in existence and as per the lease deed he has to continue in the petition premises further period of 4.8.2021 and he is running a medical shop under the name and style of M/s. Rahul Medical and General Stores in the petition premises and the respondent being a landlord of the petitioner is bound to give the permission or authorization for the competent authorities, who are competent to renew the drug license for running the said shop.
The contention of the respondent is that no lease deed much less for 11 years has been executed by the respondent and as such the respondent is not bound to sign on any document for renewal of license much less in default for payment of rent since May, 2012.
There is dispute with regard to the period of lease of petition schedule property as alleged by the petitioner herein and also willful default of payment of rent. Except mere contention that for renewal of license the respondent has to sign, the petitioner has not filed any proof of old license and any GO of the Government from Drugs Department. Moreover, the RC is pending for the further cross examination of PW.1 and at the request of the learned counsel for petitioner has been adjourning from time to time. For the non production of the proof of the requirement of the petitioner and the dispute with regard to the period of lease in respect of the petition schedule property is pending the petitioner cannot seek relief at this stage.
With the above observations the petition is disposed of.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of April, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2016
R.C.No.84 of 2014
Between: Mrs. M.G. Palnitkar W/o. Dr. G.P. Palnitkar, Age: 69 years, Occ: Landlady, R/o.H.No.5-2-1026, JN Road, Hyderabad …. Petitioner
And
1. Dr. Sanjay Nilawar S/o. Kalyanrao Nilawar, Age: 42 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o.404, Tulsi Apartments, Opp: Hanuman Temple, Domalguda, Hyderguda, Hyderabad.
2. Kalyan Rao Nilawar S/o. N.D. Rao, Age: 70 years, Occ: Financial Advisor, R/o.11-3-146, Kothapet, Hyderabad.
The respondent No.2 was brought on record as per the order in I.A.420 of 2014 dt.8.4.2015.
…… Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Papa Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri R. Upender Reddy, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
I.A. 164/16 is allowed. Case is advanced from 22.4.2016 to today.
The petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 filed joint memo stating that respondents No.1 and 2 have vacated the petition schedule property on 31.12.2015 and petitioner has taken the possession of petition schedule premises and there are no claims between the petitioner and the respondents and petitioner is not pressing the RC.
The memo is recorded. In view of the memo filed by both the parties the RC is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 20th day of April, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2016
R.C.No.304 of 2012
Between: Dattatreya Jadhav S/o. Late Tuljaram Jadhav Aged 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o.5-3-89, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
1. Smt. Sunder Bai W/o. Satyanarayana, Aged about 77 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.14-10-191, Lower Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.
2. Uday Sain S/o. Sri Chandra Sain, aged 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.15-3-78, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.
3. Smt. Anila Kumari W/o. Late Sri Kiran Sain, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Household,
4. Sri K. Chotam Sain S/o. Late Kiran Sain, Aged 30 years, Occ: Business,
5. Sri K. Lalith Sain S/o. Late Kiran Sain, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business,
Respondents No.3 to 5 are R/o.11-6-410, Laxmiram Nivas, Nampally, Hyderabad.
6. Smt. Komal Rani W/o. Late Munnalal Jaiswal Aged about 62 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.3-3-819/1, Kutbiguda, Hyderabad.
(Respondent No.6 is added as per the orders passed in I.A.NO.429/13, dt.18.2.2015).
…… Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M/s Thakur Singh, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri D.P. Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri Thirumal Rao, Advocae for the respondents No.3 to 5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner is present. At request of petitioner time extended for the evidence of petitioner on payment of costs of Rs.200/- with a condition that petitioner shall get ready for evidence on the next date of adjournment as it is a old case. Call on 18.3.2016.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 9th day of March, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2016
R.C.134 of 2015
Between: Mrs. B. Gangamma W/o. Mr. B. Shankaraiah aged 38 years, Occ: Labourer, R/o.H.No.13-6-450/179, GF, Alluri Seetaramaraju Nagar, Karwan, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioner AND
Mr. R. Lingamma W/o. Mr. R. Ramanjaneyuou aged 35 years, Occ: Labourer, R/o. H.No.13-6-450/220 FF, Alluri Seetaramaraju Nagar, Karwan, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Srinivas Kalanidhi,, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri J. Ravindra, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
The learned counsel for petitioner intends to mark certified copy of agreement of sale. The learned counsel for respondent objected for marking the same stating that agreement of sale documents were unregistered documents and recitals clearly said that the entire sale consideration is received from vendee to vendor and the nomenclature do not disclose it is an agreement of sale and it creates right of property and it is a clear sale deed and property belongs to AP Housing Board and no certificate of sale is issued by Housing Board.
Hear arguments.
In Sardar Darshan Vs Sardar Ram Singh reported in 2004(6) ALT 217 the
Hon’ble court held that document sought to be relied on by other side as a
defence in an injunction application filed in a suit for specific performance to show that he purchased the property under that agreement of sale and that he is in possession and case falls under proviso to Section 49 which is an exception to requirement of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act and document in question can therefore be received in evidence for the said purpose without registration.
In Marthala Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Mutyalapati Pedda Subbanna @ Venkata Subbanna and another reported in 2006(1) ALT 132 wherein the
Hon’ble court held that purpose of stamp duty and penalty cannot be
escaped even for its use as for collateral purpose.
For the foregoing reasons and in the light of above decision it is obvious that the contents of the documents revealed that the physical possession of the schedule property of the documents were delivered by the vendor to the vendee on the date of execution of the documents and the sale consideration was received by the vendor which termed as sale deed and it requires registration, stamp duty and penalty.
Therefore, the petitioner is directed to pay the required stamp duty and penalty for the documents which he intends to mark as exhibits on his behalf.
For affirmation and for marking of documents by PW.1 call on 27.4.2016.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 22nd day of April, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.A. Sreedevi, II Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2014
R.C.No.334 of 2012
Between: Survi Sravan Kumar Goud S/o.Late Sree Ramulu aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o.F-3, Block No.34, MIG-II, Dr.Ambedkar College Lane, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Smt. C. Bhagya Lakshmi W/o. Not known aged major, Occ: Business,
2. Sri K. Chandra Mohan S/o. Anjaneyulu aged major,
3. Anjaneylu S/o. Not known, aged Major
All are R/o.1-1-652/4, SBI Colony, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. . Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri G. Dhananjai, Advocate for respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner side no representation. Inspite of passing conditional orders petitioner did not turn up to adduce evidence, and for enquiry.
Hence this RC is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of March, 2014
SD/-
SMT. A. SREEDEVI
II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
FAC II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.A. Sreedevi, II Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2012
R.C.No.295 of 2012
Between:
Asma Khatoon W/o. Dr. Sammiulla Khan aged 36 years, Occ: Landlady R/o.H.No.15-8-234/2/4, Goshamahal, Begumbazar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Vinay Kumar Jain S/o. Kesavdev Jain aged 66 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.15-8-234/2/4, Goshamahal,
Begumbazar, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Papa Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Memo filed by the counsel for petitioner stating that respondent handed over the peaceful vacant possession of the petition schedule premises, hence prays RC may be withdrawn as not pressed. Memo recorded. Accordingly, petition is dismsised as not pressed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of November, 2012.
SD/-
SMT. A. SREEDEVI
II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
FAC II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.A. Sreedevi, II Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2012
R.C.No.173 of 2012
Between:
Roopchand Choudhary S/o. Late Sri Madan Lal Choudhary aged 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o.14-4-223, Sri Kishan Gunj, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
R. Mohan S/o. R.Lingam, Aged 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Portion of H.No.14-3-295, situated at Joshiwadi, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. . Respondent This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Mohd Ghulam Hussain, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
This RC not pressed by the petitioner as the respondent vacated the
PSP. Hence this RC is dismsised as not pressed and the same is recorded.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 27th day of August, 2012.
SD/-
SMT. A. SREEDEVI
II ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
FAC II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2015
I.A.No.284 of 2009
IN
R.C.No.242 of 2004
Between: Anirudh Prasad S/o. Late Sri Johrilal Aged about 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.21-2-600, Urdu Galli, Patel Market, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
1. M/s. Maheshchand Benigopal, rep by G. LIngaiah S/o. G. Ramaiah, aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.21-6-319, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad.
2. New Reliance Type Writing & Shorthand Institute & Xerox Centre rep. by G. Lingaiah S/o. G. Ramaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.NO22-5-63, Charkaman Road, Hyderabad and R/o.H.No.21-6-319, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad.
…. Respondents/Respondents.
3. Sri Atma Prakash S/o. Late G. Lingaiah Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.22-5-63, Charkaman Road, Hyderabad and also R/o.H.No.21-6-319, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad.
4. Sri Venu S/o. Late G. Lingaiah, aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.22-5-63, Charkaman Road, Hyderabad And also R/o.H.NO.21-6-319, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad.
5 Smt. G. Lalitha W/o. Late G. Lingaiah Aged about 60 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.NO.22-5-63, Charkaman Road, Hyderabad and also R/o.H.No.21-6-319, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad. (Respondents NO.3 to 5 are impleaded as per the orders in I.A.181 of 2011, Dt.21.8.2014)
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of S. Ashok Anand Kumar, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K. Buchi Babu, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.M.K.Padmavathi,
Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2013
R.C.No.190 of 2008
Between:
Sofia Hasan D/o. Late Hasan Sayeed Siddiqui Age: 42 years, occ: Household, R/o.5-6-94, New Aghapura, Hyderabad, presently residing at 6141 N Sacramento Apt # 1, Chicago III 606059 USA represented by her G.P.A. Zulfequar Alam S/o. Late Akber Alam Age: 38 years, Occ: advocate, R/o.5-6-94, New Aghapura, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Shaik Mansoor S/o. Late Shaik Maqdoom Ali Age: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.6-3-663/13, Jafer Ali Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. Business at 6-3-668/14, Punjagutta, Hyderabad.
. Respondent This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Haroon Osman, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
I.A.141 of 2013 is partly allowed by rejecting Ex.P19 and Ex.P20.
I.A.142/13 is allowed on costs of Rs.1000/-. Call on 23.10.2013.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of October, 2013.
SD/-
SMT. M.K. Padmavathi
PRL. RENT CONTROLLER
FAC I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2016
E.P.No.12 of 2013
IN
R.C.238 of 2001
Between: Sri Anirudh Prasad S/o. Late Sri Johrilal, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.21-2-600, Urdu Galli, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioner/decree holder
AND
1. Smt. P. Agamma (died per Lrs)
2. P. Sadanand S/o. Rajaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.22-5-61, Charkaman, Hyderabad.
3. P. Shivkumar S/o. P. Rajaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.18-5-788, Lal Darwaza, Hyderabad
.. Respondents/judgment debtors
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Shamsunder Agarwal,, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri TV Ramanamurthy, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri M.F. Rama Raju, Advocate for the respondent No.3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
The court bailiff filed report dt.8.3.2016 stated that possession of petition schedule mulgi was delivered to decree holder. Delivery receipt filed. Delivery effected. Hence EP is terminated.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 15th day of March, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2016
R.C.No.244 of 2014
Between:
1. Mohd Sadiq-ur-Rahman S/o. Late Fazlur Rahman, aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.20-3-1059/1/A, Khursheed Jah Dewdi, Hyderabad
2. Mohd Ateeq-ur-Rahman S/o. late Fazlur Rahman, aged about 61 years, Occ; Business, R/o.Local Flat No.203, H.No.16-2-61/A/4, Akbarbagh, Malkapet, Hyderabad.
3. Mohammed Ilyas Khan S/o. Mohammed Ibrahim Khan, aged about 73 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o.H.No.20-4-212/A/1, Khilwath, Charminar, Hyderabad.
4. Mohammed Ibrahim Khan S/o. Mohammed Ilyas Khan, aged about 34 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o.H.No.20-4-212/A/1, Khilwath, Charminar, Hyderabad.
5. Mrs. Mushfeequnnisa Begum W/o. Quvi Junidi, aged about 66 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.19-4-340/54/49/74/2, Arsh Mahal Masjid, Sikh Chowni, Kishanbagh, Hyderabad.
6. Mohd Qaviuddin Junidi S/o. Mohd Raheemudin Junaidi, aged about 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.19-4-340/54/49/72/2, Arsh Mahal, Kishan Bagh, Hyderabad.
7. Mohd Khaja Junaidi S/o. Mohd Qaviuddin Junaidi, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-15-96/39/7, Shama Colony, Vattepally, Hyderabad.
(Petitioners No.6 and 7 brought on record as per orders in I.A.250/15, dt.9.10.2015)
….. .. Petitioners
AND
1. D. Narsing Rao S/o. Late D Muthilingam, aged about 68 years, occ: Business,
2. D. Nageshwar Rao S/o. Late D. Muthilingam, aged about 56 years, Occ: Business, Both are R/o.20-2-696, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad.
……. Respondents This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohd Rahmatullah Khan, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri B Vijay Sen Reddy, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioners and kept aside till 4.10 p.m. The case is again called at 4.10 p.m. Petitioners and learned counsel for petitioners called absent. No representation. It seems petitioners have no interest in the case. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of February, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2015
I.A.No.338 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.277 of 2014
Between: Yesuratnam S/o Not known, age: Major, Occ: Buisness, R/o. H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. . …. Petitioner/Respondent
And
1. Smt. Faheema Parveen W/o. Mohd Khaja Fariduddin, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o.1-1-379/204/1, Ashoknagar X Roads, Hyderabad …. Respondent/petitioner
2. Zafar Ali Baig S/o. Late Faree Ali Baig, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Service, R/o.H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
3. Qauisar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 50 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. H.No.6-2-112, Bistiwada, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.
4. Anwar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, aged about 48 years, Occ: Pvt service, R/o.H.No.9-10-68/A/40/4, Reshambagh, Golconda, Hyderabad.
5. Mazhar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-210/2/V, st.No.2 Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.
6. Smt. Rafat Salma W/o. Mohd Nizamuddin, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Husewife, R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
7. Ms. Sabeha Fareed D/o. Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 33 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o.C/o.Mohd Nizamuddin, H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad.
8. Smt. Nomina Fareed W/o. Md. Anwarullaha Asif Aged 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.2-1-568/9, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.
9. Afroz Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged 28 years, Occ: Student, R/o.C/o.Smt. Rafat Salma R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents/respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of I. Sujatha Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Sopan Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the respondent No.1 in the RC under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Rent Control Rules praying the court to receive the document i.e., original rental agreement dt.5.9.2005 stating that it was got mixed with other papers.
The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the petition averments stating that the petitioner has not referred the memorandum of rental agreement in the counter filed by him in RC 277 of 2014 and it cannot be admitted in evidence and it cannot be marked for collateral purpose as the same is not sufficiently stamped and registered and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
No oral evidence is adduced and no documents were marked on behalf of both sides.
Heard.
The respondent No.1 herein has filed the main RC against the petitioner herein and others for eviction and the same is coming for marking of documents on behalf of the petitioner herein. At this stage the petitioner herien has filed the petition to receive the document and the respondent has objected the same.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that: “Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
. Mere receiving of document will not cause any prejudice to the respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of document at the time of evidence. .
Considering the reasons mentioned in the petition, the petition is allowed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th day of December, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2015
I.A.No.360 of 2015 IN
R.C.No.276 of 2014
Between: Mohd Muner S/o Not known, age: Major, Occ: Buisness, R/o. H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Respondent
And
1. Smt. Faheema Parveen W/o. Mohd Khaja Fariduddin, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o.1-1-379/204/1, Ashoknagar X Roads, Hyderabad. … Respondent/petitioner
2. Zafar Ali Baig S/o. Late Faree Ali Baig, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Service, R/o.H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
3. Qauisar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 50 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. H.No.6-2-112, Bistiwada, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.
4. Anwar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, aged about 48 years, Occ: Pvt service, R/o.H.No.9-10-68/A/40/4, Reshambagh, Golconda, Hyderabad.
5. Mazhar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-210/2/V, st.No.2 Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.
6. Smt. Rafat Salma W/o. Mohd Nizamuddin, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Husewife, R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
7. Ms. Sabeha Fareed D/o. Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 33 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o.C/o.Mohd Nizamuddin, H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad.
8. Smt. Nomina Fareed W/o. Md. Anwarullaha Asif Aged 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.2-1-568/9, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.
9. Afroz Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged 28 years, Occ: Student, R/o.C/o.Smt. Rafat Salma
R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents/Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of I. Sujatha Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Sopan Rao Patil, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The petition has been filed under Rule 7(5) of A.P. Rent Control Rules praying the court to receive the document i.e., original rental agreement dt.5.9.2005 stating that the same was mixed up with other papers and as such he could not file the document at the time of filing counter in the main RC.
The learned counsel for the respondent has endorsed the counter but has reported no counter.
Heard.
In 2005(1) APLJ 49 Short Notes wherein it is held that “At the time of filing of documents court need not consider the relevancy of the documents, it is at the trial if it is found that the documents are not relevant, they can be rejected”.
In Gopal Das Vs. Sri Thakurji reported in AIR 1943 Page 83 at 87 it is held that: “Mere marking of document is no proof and the proper time for raising objection regarding admissibility of document or sufficiency of proof is at the stage of trial”.
. Mere receiving of document will not cause any prejudice to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent can have an opportunity to question about the admissibility and relevancy of document at the time of evidence. .
Considering the reasons mentioned in the petition, the petition is allowed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 10th day of December, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2016
R.C.No.276 of 2014
Between: Smt. Faheema Parveen W/o. Mohd Khaja Fariduddin, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o.1-1-379/204/1, Ashoknagar X Roads, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
1. Mohd Muner S/o Not known, age: Major, Occ: Buisness, R/o. H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
2. Zafar Ali Baig S/o. Late Faree Ali Baig, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Service, R/o.H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
3. Qauisar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 50 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. H.No.6-2-112, Bistiwada, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.
4. Anwar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, aged about 48 years,
Occ: Pvt service, R/o.H.No.9-10-68/A/40/4, Reshambagh, Golconda, Hyderabad.
5. Mazhar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-210/2/V, st.No.2 Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.
6. Smt. Rafat Salma W/o. Mohd Nizamuddin, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Husewife, R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
7. Ms. Sabeha Fareed D/o. Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 33 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o.C/o.Mohd Nizamuddin, H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad.
8. Smt. Nomina Fareed W/o. Md. Anwarullaha Asif Aged 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.2-1-568/9, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.
9. Afroz Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged 28 years, Occ: Student, R/o.C/o.Smt. Rafat Salma R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Sopan Rao Patil, Advocate for petitioner and of I. Sujatha, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for the respondent intends to mark unregistered memorandum of rental agreement dt.5.9.2005 on behalf of the respondent, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed for marking the same stating that the rental deed requires registration and stamp duty.
The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the rental deed through not registered it can be used for collateral purpose and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Shibani Basu Vs. Sandip Ray delivered on 26.11.2010 wherein the Hon’ble court held that it is true that the non registration of the rent note does not debar the use of a document that is compulsorily registerable for collateral purpose, but that aspect would in the instant case pale into insignificance keeping in view the state of pleadings on the question of months of tenancy and the legal implication thereof.
In the present case there is a dispute of jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 is contending that respondent No.2 is his landlord and he is not the tenant of the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in Relangi Nageswara Rao and another Vs. Tatha Chiranjeeva Rao (died) per LRs., reported in 2000(5) ALT 561 wherein the Hon’ble court held that the case of the petitioner would stand or fail on establishing the relationship and that issue cannot be decided in the guise of collateral transaction and the unregistered lease deed cannot be received in evidence for establishing the relationship between the petitioner and respondent as landlord and tenant as collateral issue.
The learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon the decision in Kiran Bansal Vs. T. Chandra Kala and another reported in 2015(6) ALT 670 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that the State Legislature had amended Indian Registration Act, 1980 by AP Act No.4 of 1999 with effect from 1.4.1999 making all cases of immovable property irrespective of their duration compulsorily registerable and section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 prohibits receiving in evidence documents required by law to be registered and which are not registered. Since there is a dispute with regard to the jural relationship of petitioner and respondent as contesting by the respondent NO.1 the unregistered rental agreement on which the respondent is relying upon cannot be used as collateral purpose in the present case in view of the dispute of tenancy. Hence objection raised by the learned counsel for petitioner is sustained.
For hearing of respondent call on 11.2.2016
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 9th day of February, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2016
R.C.No.277 of 2014
Between: Smt. Faheema Parveen W/o. Mohd Khaja Fariduddin, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o.1-1-379/204/1,
Ashoknagar X Roads, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
1. Yesu Ratnam S/o Not known, age: Major, Occ: Buisness, R/o. H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
2. Zafar Ali Baig S/o. Late Faree Ali Baig, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Service, R/o.H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
3. Qauisar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 50 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. H.No.6-2-112, Bistiwada, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.
4. Anwar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, aged about 48 years, Occ: Pvt service, R/o.H.No.9-10-68/A/40/4, Reshambagh, Golconda, Hyderabad.
5. Mazhar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-210/2/V, st.No.2 Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.
6. Smt. Rafat Salma W/o. Mohd Nizamuddin, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Husewife, R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
7. Ms. Sabeha Fareed D/o. Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 33 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o.C/o.Mohd Nizamuddin, H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad.
8. Smt. Nomina Fareed W/o. Md. Anwarullaha Asif Aged 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.2-1-568/9, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.
9. Afroz Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged 28 years, Occ: Student, R/o.C/o.Smt. Rafat Salma R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Sopan Rao Patil, Advocate for petitioner and of I. Sujatha, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for the respondent intends to mark unregistered memorandum of rental agreement dt.5.9.2005 on behalf of the respondent, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed for marking the same stating that the rental deed requires registration and stamp duty.
The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the rental deed through not registered it can be used for collateral purpose and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Shibani Basu Vs. Sandip Ray delivered on 26.11.2010 wherein the Hon’ble court held that it is true that the non registration of the rent note does not debar the use of a document that is compulsorily registerable for collateral purpose, but that aspect would in the instant case pale into insignificance keeping in view the state of pleadings on the question of months of tenancy and the legal implication thereof.
In the present case there is a dispute of jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 is contending that respondent No.2 is his landlord and he is not the tenant of the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in Relangi Nageswara Rao and another Vs. Tatha Chiranjeeva Rao (died) per LRs., reported in 2000(5) ALT 561 wherein the Hon’ble court held that the case of the petitioner would stand or fail on establishing the relationship and that issue cannot be decided in the guise of collateral transaction and the unregistered lease deed cannot be received in evidence for establishing the relationship between the petitioner and respondent as landlord and tenant as collateral issue.
The learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon the decision in Kiran Bansal Vs. T. Chandra Kala and another reported in 2015(6) ALT 670 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that the State Legislature had amended Indian Registration Act, 1980 by AP Act No.4 of 1999 with effect from 1.4.1999 making all cases of immovable property irrespective of their duration compulsorily registerable and section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 prohibits receiving in evidence documents required by law to be registered and which are not registered. Since there is a dispute with regard to the jural relationship of petitioner and respondent as contesting by the respondent NO.1 the unregistered rental agreement on which the respondent is relying upon cannot be used as collateral purpose in the present case in view of the dispute of tenancy. Hence objection raised by the learned counsel for petitioner is sustained.
For hearing of respondent call on 11.2.2016
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 9th day of February, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.D. Sarala Kumari, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
E.A.No. 6 of 2005
IN
E.P.No.47 of 2004
IN
E.A.No.49 of 2004
IN
EP.No.12 of 2004
IN
R.C.No.405 of 2002
Between: N. Dhananjay N. Chavan S/o. Sri T. Narayan Rao Aged 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.402, Sri Gourav Kalyan Apartments, 3-4-299 & 230 Kachiguda, Hyderabad
.. Petitioner/respondent/decree holder
And
1. V. Pranav Kumar S/o. Late V. Prahlad Singh
Aged 35 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.H.No.3-1-637, Nimboliadda, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. ….Respondent/Claim petitioner
2. Mr. Sundermala S/o. Mala, aged 33 years, Occ: Business, at P.No.3-1-551, 552 & 565, First floor, Nimboliadda, Hyderabad.
…. Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Ravi, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Krishna, Advocate for the respondent/claim petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER Dt.26.8.2006
Heard. Perused the records. It is the case of the petitioner that he intend to file the Xerox copy of the gift deed dated 28.9.1982 along with original plan. The original vendor informed him the gift deed executed by the Balaram Singh Panthulu in favour of her husband got misplaced. Accordingly the Xerox copy can be taken into consideration as a secondary evidence under section 65 of Indian Evidence Act.
The respondent filed a detailed counter by taking so many objections and stated that the said petition is not maintianable.
On my perusal and basing on the contrary stand taken by both sides it has to be seen whether there are any considerable grounds to allow this petition.
This is the E.A.6/05 filed in E.A.47/04 in RC.405/02 the main E.A., filed by the claim petitioners by challenging the title of the petition schedule property. Accoridng to the Rent Control Act the enquiry before the Rent Controller has been conducted summarily with respect to the deciding the ownership of the suit schedule property or with respect to the denial of title whether it is bonafide or malafide.
In the present case already somany link documents marked on behalf of the petitioner. More particularly this petitioner/respondent/DHR already contested in the main RC., and succeeded. Hence this court feels the further link documents to establish this case is not required. That will goes to show that nothing but to caused to delay of the proceedings.
Hence there is no merits to allow this petition and hence the petition is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation in the open court on this the 26th day of August 2006.
SD/-
SMT. D. SARALA KUMARI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2016
I.A.No.463 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.304 of 2012
Between: Smt. Komal Rani W/o. Late Munnalal Jaiswal Aged about 62 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.3-3-819/1, Kutbiguda, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
1. Dattatreya Jadhav S/o. Late Tuljaram Jadhav Aged 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o.5-3-89, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.
2. Smt. Sunder Bai W/o. Satyanarayana, Aged about 77 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.14-10-191, Lower Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.
3. Uday Sain S/o. Sri Chandra Sain, aged 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.15-3-78, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.
4. Smt. Anila Kumari W/o. Late Sri Kiran Sain, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Household,
5. Sri K. Chotam Sain S/o. Late Kiran Sain, Aged 30 years, Occ: Business,
6. Sri K. Lalith Sain S/o. Late Kiran Sain, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business,
All are R/o.11-6-410, Laxmiram Nivas, Nampally, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Rana Kamalasan, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Thakur Singh, Advcate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The GPA holder has filed affidavit about the subsisting of GPA. Hence the petition is allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of January, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2016
R.C.No.183 of 2015
Between: R. Bharath Raj S/o. R. Krishna Swamy Naidu Aged about 62 years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o.H.No.16-11-482, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
1. S. Shashidhar S/o. S.N. Srinivas Rao Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, Shop No.16-11-482/5, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.
2. Moni Enterprises, rep. by its proprietor A. Kalyan S/o. A. Anjaiah, aged about 37 years,
Occ: Business, shop No.16-11-482/5, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Vidya Sagar Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K. Raja Reddy, Advcate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner has filed memo stating that the matter is settled out of court and the respondent vacated and handed over the keys and provision of the petition schedule property and he is not pressing the RC.
The memo is recorded. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the
RC is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of January, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
…NIL….
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2016
I.A.No.463 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.304 of 2012
Between: Smt. Komal Rani W/o. Late Munnalal Jaiswal Aged about 62 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.3-3-819/1, Kutbiguda, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
1. Dattatreya Jadhav S/o. Late Tuljaram Jadhav Aged 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o.5-3-89, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.
2. Smt. Sunder Bai W/o. Satyanarayana, Aged about 77 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.14-10-191, Lower Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.
3. Uday Sain S/o. Sri Chandra Sain, aged 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.15-3-78, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.
4. Smt. Anila Kumari W/o. Late Sri Kiran Sain, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Household,
5. Sri K. Chotam Sain S/o. Late Kiran Sain, Aged 30 years, Occ: Business,
6. Sri K. Lalith Sain S/o. Late Kiran Sain, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business,
All are R/o.11-6-410, Laxmiram Nivas, Nampally, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Rana Kamalasan, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Thakur Singh, Advcate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
This petition is filed under Rule 32 of CRP praying the court to permit the petitioner to represent and defend her case through her GPA as she is in advanced old age, suffering from old age ailments and cannot attend the court often and peruse her case and as such she executed GPA in favour of her son Ravinder Kumar to act on her behalf in the above case.
The respondent No1 has filed counter denying the petition averments stating that in the present petition the affidavit of the GPA holder Ravinder is not filed and not only GPA dt.6.11.2014 is an unregistered document and it is not admissible and an agent cannot be permitted to use the said GPA unless it is registered.
Though sufficient time is granted the respondents No.2 to 6 have not filed counter. Hence the right to file counter by the respondents No.2 to 6 is forfeited.
Heard.
The petitioner, who is the respondent No.6 in the RC, has filed the petition to permit her GPA to represent on her behalf. The affidavit of the GPA holder, who is non other than the son of the petitioner herein and the subsisting of GPA are not filed. The provision of Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders does not speak about the registration of GPA and also provision of the Registration Act does not speak that every GPA is compulsory registered document.
The scope of the Rent Control Proceedings is limited and party may be permitted to represent through GPA holder. The GPA filed by the petitioner is notarized document.
If a person wants to authorize someone to act as a power of attorney on his behalf, it must be signed and notarized by a certified notary advocate, who is able to declare that he is competent at the time of signing the document to issue the said power of attorney. A power of attorney is not compulsorily registrable unless it creates an interest in any immovable property i.e., charge in favour of donee.
Under these circumstances, I am inclined to allow the petition subject to filing of the affidavit of the GPA holder and also about the subsisting of the GPA on or before 18.1.2016. Or else the petition shall stand dismissed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of January, 2016.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
RC.145 OF 2012 AND RC.153 OF 2012.
Rw.1 is present. Learned counsel for respondent is present. Learned junior represented on behalf of the petitioner that their senior counsel has gone to Rangareddi Courts and he would come in the after lunch. Hence the case is kept aside till after lunch.
The case is again called at 3 p.m. RW.1 is present. Learned counsel for petitioner is present. No representation from the counsel for respondent. Te office assistant of petitioner society has represented that the senior counsel will come and conduct cross examination of RW.1 and requested the court to pass over the case. At request of the office assistant the case is kept aside.
The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner society did not turn up till 4.10 p.m. The court waited till 4.10 p.m. The office assistant has represented that he has contacted the counsel and he informed that he is not coming to conduct cross examination of RW.1 as he is held up in Ranga Reddy Courts. The RW.1, who is paralytic patient and the counsel for respondent have been waiting since morning for the cross examination. Due to the uncertain representation of the petitioners’ side the RW.1 and te counsel for the petitioner are made to sit in the court till 4.10 p.m.
Time extended at request of the office assistant of the petitioner society for cross examination of RW.1 on payment of costs of RS.150/- call on 23.12.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall come and complete the cross examination on the next date of adjournment immediately after call work. Call on 23.12.2015.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2015
E.A.No.81 of 2015
IN
EP.No. 19 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.32 of 2014
Between:
Sri Poloju Brahmachary S/o. Late Sri P. Rama Chary Aged about 43 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.18-1-337/C/17, Saibaba nagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Petitioner/Petitioner A n d
1. Smt. V. Venkatamma W/o. V. Narsimha, aged abouat 41 years, Occ: Housewife,
2. Sri V. Narsimha, S/o. V. Narayana, aged abouat 46 years, Occ: Business, Both are R/o.H.NO.17-1-380/66, Vadderabasthi, D.S. Nagar, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad.
… Respondents/respondents/respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Veera Prasada Chary, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Heard.
The court bailiff has returned warrant along with report that due to lack of police staff in view of Ganesh bandobasth he could not execute warrant.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the petition it is desirable to order police protection.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 9th day of October, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2015
E.A.No.80 of 2015
IN
EP.No. 19 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.32 of 2014
Between:
Sri Poloju Brahmachary S/o. Late Sri P. Rama Chary Aged about 43 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.18-1-337/C/17, Saibaba nagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/Petitioner/Petitioner A n d
1. Smt. V. Venkatamma W/o. V. Narsimha, aged abouat 41 years, Occ: Housewife,
2. Sri V. Narsimha, S/o. V. Narayana, aged abouat 46 years, Occ: Business, Both are R/o.H.NO.17-1-380/66, Vadderabasthi, D.S. Nagar, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad.
… Respondents/respondents/respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Veera Prasada Chary, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Heard.
The court bailiff has returned warrant along with report that due to lack of police staff in view of Ganesh bandobasth he could not execute warrant.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the petition it is desirable to order break open lock.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 9th day of October, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2015
R.C.No.314 of 2012
Between:
1. Smt. Manthapuram Yashoda W/o. Late Sri Bhagwantha, Aged about 90 years, Occ: Household, rep. by her GPA Holder M. Krishna S/o. Late Sri Bhagwantha, aged about 54 years, R/o.1st floor of H.No.4-1-631, situated at Troop Bazar, Hyderabad.
2. M. Krishna S/o. Late Bahgwantha, aged about 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o.1st floor of H.No.4-1-631, situated at Troop Bazar, Hyderabad.
3. M. Prakash S/o. Bhagwantha, aged about 60 years, R/o.1st floor of H.No.4-1-631, situated at Troop Bazar, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioners
And
Mr.s Mohd Zaffaruddin Siddiqui S/o. Mohd Badaruddin Siddiqui Aged about 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.17-7-153, Dabeerpura, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri Turab Ali, Advcate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for respondent intended to mark two documents which are headed as ‘Receipt’ and ‘Agreement of sale’. The leaned counsel
for petitioner has raised objection to mark the documents stating that the
first document is not a receipt and it is a bond as per the contents and nature of the document and the second document requires registration and stamp duty and penalty.
Heard arguments.
The learned counsel for respondent has argued that in the agreement of sale document no interest is crated and the vendor, who is the tenant, is already in possession of the property and it does not require registration and the respondent would like to mark the document for collateral purpose and hence there is no need to pay stamp duty.
The learned counsel for respondent has relied upon the decision in R. Venkatram Reddy and another Vs. Jetamoni Gouramma reported in 2011(6) ALD 355 wherein the Hon’ble court held that it can be construed that possession is not absolute and it is only for limited purpose and the …2…..
possession mentioned in Explanation-1 of Stamp Act must be effective, actual and the one recognized in law and unless the party under the agreement has the benefit of possession of the property, without any dispute, or challenge, from a party to the agreement, he cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay the stamp duty, as though it is a sale deed.
The learned counsel for petitioner argued that the status of the parties earlier was changed as per the agreement of sale and though the respondent wants to mark the document for collateral purpose, after it requires stamp duty and penalty.
The learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision in Nookala Krishnaiah (died) and another Vs. Nookala Dakshina Murthy and others reported in 2007(6) ALD 781 wherein the Hon’ble court held that if the unstamped documents are sought to be marked for collateral purpose, necessary stamp duty along with penalty is required to be paid before they are being required in evidence.
In Sardar Darshan Vs Sardar Ram Singh reported in 2004(6) ALT 217 the
Hon’ble court held that document sought to be relied on by other side as a
defence in an injunction application filed in a suit for specific performance to show that he purchased the property under that agreement of sale and that he is in possession and case falls under proviso to Section 49 which is an exception to requirement of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act and document in question can therefore be received in evidence for the said purpose without registration.
In Marthala Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Mutyalapati Pedda Subbanna @ Venkata Subbanna and another reported in 2006(1) ALT 132 wherein the Hon’ble court held that purpose of stamp duty and penalty cannot be escaped even for its use as for collateral purpose.
The learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon the decision in Undeela Gowrinath Vs. Mutyam Anil Kumar reported in 2011(6) ALD 693 wherein the Hon’ble court held that Section 6 of Stamp Act, makes it clear that if an instrument is so framed as to come within two or more descriptions in Schedule I or in Schedule I-A as the case may be, where the duties chargeable there under are different, shall be chargeable with the highest of such duties and “Bond” which is included at Entry 15 of the Schedule I and “Receipt” which is included at Entry 53 of the same Schedule, are liable to suffer different charges and between the two, a bond is chargeable with more duty and Section 6 deals with instrument, which may legitimately fall under one or more of the entries enumerated in either Schedule I or Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act and in this view of the matter, the suit instrument is liable to be construed as a “bond”, but not a “receipt”, since it contained something more than mere acknowledgement of money and consequently, liable to be charged to duty accordingly”.
For the foregoing reasons and in the light of above decision it is obvious that the contents of the document which is headed as ‘receipt’ revealed that some of the amount has paid and acknowledged and the balance amount to be paid was undertaken by the party and hence it can be termed as ‘bond’ and though the respondent intends to mark the document which is headed as ‘agreement of sale’, yet it requires stamp duty and penalty.
…3…
Therefore, the respondent is directed to pay the required stamp duty and penalty for the two documents which he intends to mark as exhibits on his behalf.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 1st day of December, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2015
R.C.No.286 of 2014
Between: M/s ESBEE Holdings Private Limited Rep by its Chairman Mr. Syed Badruddin S/o. Mr. Syed Waheeduddin, Muslim, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Buisness having its Registered ffice at 8-2-580/B/2, Road No.8, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
M/s. Ashok Brothers rep. by
1. Mr. Ashok Desai(died)
2. Mr. Jitender Desai S/o. Late Ashok Desai Hindu, aged about 35 years, Occ: Business Carrying in Mulgi (M6) bearing M.No.5-4-367/1, Situated at Ali Cottage Compound, Mukarramjahi Road, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri R. Saidhi Reddy, Advcate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
PW.1 called absent. At request of learned counsel for petitioner time extended on condition that petitioner shall get ready for cross examination on the next date of adjournment, as it is an identified case call on 16.11.2015.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of October, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2015
R.C.No.22 of 2015
Between: Savitha Jaiswal W/o. Late Hriday Raj Jaiswal, Aged 64 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Flat No.108, Tara Jeet Residency, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
1. Venkatesh S/o. Late Chandraiah, Occ: Business, Age: 42 years,
2. Smt. R. Bharathi W/o. Late Chandraiah, aged: 70 years,
3. Satish Kumar S/o. Late Chandraiah, age: 38 years, Occ: Business, All are R/o.Mulgi No.4-7-1022, Esamiya Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Susheel Kumar Jaiwal, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advcate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The contention of the petitioner is that the deceased tenant has habitual defaulter and committed default in payment of rent and he filed
RC 58 of 2010 and I.A.460 of 2010 U/s. 11 of RC Act and he filed I.A.319
of 2011 U/s.11(4) of RC Act and after enquiry the tenant expired and the respondents contested I.A.319 of 2011 and it was allowed and proceedings stopped in RC.58 of 2010 and the respondent preferred rent appeal which was allowed and enquiry in RC..58 of 2010 is to be taken up and after rent appeal was allowed the respondents failed to pay rent from September 2014 till January 2015 and committed default.
The contention of the respondents is that they paid rents from October to December 2014 on 23.1.2015 and rent for the month of January 2015 is paid on 6.2.2015 and the rent for the month of February 2015 is paid on 8.3.2015.
According to Section 101 of Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the person who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner who asserts the affirmative of the issue.
Hence the petitioner is directed to get ready for evidence and adduce evidence on te next date of adjournment. Call on 29.9.2015.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 16th day of September, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2015
R.C.No.30 of 2014
Between: Mohd Jaweed S/o. Mohd Hasham, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.8-3-229/D/84/A, Venkatagiri Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
1. Muneeruddin S/o. Mohd Rajuddin Aged: Major, Occ: Business,
2. Mohd Kaleemuddin S/o. Mohd Tajuddin Aged 26 years, Occ: Business, Adress: 8-3-229/D/16/C, Venkatagiri, Gayatri Hills Road, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri D. Vijay Kumar, Advocate for petitioner and of
Sri Ahmed Khan, Advcate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for respondent has filed memo stating that respondent is filing medical certificate and filed medical certificate. Call on 15.10.2015.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 9th day of October, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2015
R.C.No.395 of 2007
Between:
1. Nawab Mohd Jameeluddin Khan S/o. Late Nawab Kabeeruddin Khan Aged about 51years, Occ: landlord
2. Nawab Mohd Rasheeduddin Khan S/o. Late Nawab Kabeeruddin, Aged about 55 yeas, Occ: Business
3. Sayeedunnisa Begum D/o. Late Nawab Kabeeruddin Khan Aged about 49 years, occ: housewife
4. Basheerunnisa Begum /o. Late Nawab Kabeeruddin khan Aged about 47 years, occ: housewife
5. Zareena Sultana W/o. Late Mohd Mabrisuddin Khan Daughter in law of Late Nawab Kabeeruddin Khan Aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife
6. Ashrafunnisa Begum D/o. Late Mohd Mabrisuddin khan Granddaughter of Late Nawab Kabeeruddin Khan Aged about 30 years, occ; housewife
7. Ahmedunnisa Begum D/o. Late Mohd Mabrisuddin Khan Granddaughter of Late Nawab Kabeeruddin Khan Aged about 28 years, Occ: housewife
8. Azeemuddin khan S/o. Late Mhd Mabrisuddin khan Grandson of Late Nawab Kabeeruddin Khan Aged about 29 years, occ: student
9. Azamuddin khan S/o. Late Mohd Mabrisuddin Khan Grandson of Late Nawab Kabeeruddin Khan Aged about 25 years, occ: student All are R/o.H.No.18-8-450/39, Edi bazaar, rep. by their GPA Holders(1) Awa Mohd Arif Ansari S/o. Late A.H. Ansari Aged 62 years, R/o.12-11-531, Warasiguda, Secunderabad (2) P. Srinivas S/o. Sudershan, aged 36 years, R/o.23-4-527, 529 to 530, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioners
And
1. Maleka Begum W/o. Mohd Mukhtar Ahmed Aged about 38 years, Occ: Housewife, Muslim R/o.18-12-418/10/B/102/1/D, Hafeez Baba Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. Mahmooda Begum W/o. Late Md. Haneef Aged about 59 years, Occ; Housewife, Rep GPA Mohd Attaullah
3. Dr. Mohammed Ali S/o. late Mohd Yakub Ali Aged 48 years, Occ: Practicing Doctor, R/o.H.No.5-6-52, Aghapura, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Balchand, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advcate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
During the course of further chief examination of RW.1, the learned counsel for the respondent wants to mark notarized attested copy of memorandum of oral gift dt.25.1.1958 and the notarized attested copy of Will dt.6.3.1991 as secondary evidence on behalf of the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised objection for marking of the said documents stating that unless the respondents have proved about the existence and non production of the originals of above documents, they cannot mark them as secondary evidence.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision in Suddapally Lakshmi Saroja Vs. Vishnu Botla Murali Krishna and others reported in 2014(3) ALD 427. The facts of that case are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. In that case, the court held that in case there is no dispute as to the existence of the originals the burden of such party substantially reduced, and if, on the other hand, the very document disputed, various steps are required to be taken.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision in Bihari Lal Vs. Ram Piari reported in 2000(2) CCC 278 (P & H). The facts of that case are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. In that case, according to plaintiff, he lost the Will when he was going in a rickshaw.
The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the decision in J.Yashoda Vs. K. Shobha Rani reported in 2007 SC 1721(1) wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that in order to produce secondary evidence it is
necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document.
He also relied on the decision in H.Siddiqui(dead) by L.Rs., Vs. A. Ramalingam reported in AIR 2011 SC 1492, the Hon’ble court held that in a case where original documents are not produce at any time, nor factual foundation has been led for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the Court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence and thus, secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring.
In the present case this court observed in I.A.411 of 2014 that the respondents herein have to produce necessary evidence with regard to secondary evidence at the time of enquiry and the court has to decide the matter at the time of main enquiry and any evidence which the petitioners produced by way of secondary evidence concerning existence, contents of document will be subject to being questioned on all permissible grounds by the petitioners and will be further subject to appreciation of admissibility and acceptability of such evidence sought to be produced as secondary evidence.
In the present RC the respondents contested with regard to the existence of original documents stating that the originals are in the possession of new purchasers and they handed over the attested copies and they filed notarized attested copies of memorandum of gift and Will in the court. The respondents have to take steps with regard to the proof of the existence of originals which are said to have been in the custody of the third parties in order to lead secondary evidence. Unless proper steps are taken by the respondents to produce necessary evidence with regard to leading of secondary evidence, the above said documents cannot be marked as secondary evidence. Hence the objection raised by the petitioners is sustained. For further chief examination of RW.1 Call on 23.9.2015
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 14th day of September, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2015
R.C.No.302 of 2011
Between: Mohd Mahmood Khan S/o. Late Md Ismail Khan Aged 74 years, Occ: Retired, R/o.H.No.11-2-360/A, Mylargadda, Secunderabad. …. Petitioner
And
Jaleel Ahmed S/o. Late Nafees Ahmed Aged about 62 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.22-8-60/17, 1st floor Jamal Market, Chattabazar, Hyderabad. Presently residing at U.S.A.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Papa Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Pramod Kinhalkar, Advcate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Respondent and learned counsel for respondent called absent. The proposed GPA called absent. No representation. Learned counsel for petitioner is present. Since more than four months time expired and the document sent to the District Registrar is not received by this court so far and no information from the office of District Registrar whether the party approached the office for impound of the document. Though condition order passed either respondent or learned counsel for respondent did not appear before the court to inform about the stage of document sent to the District Registrar so as to know whether it is impounded or not. It seems the respondent at whose instance the document was sent for impounding has no interest in the matter. Hence time extended for respondent’s side evidence on condition that respondent shall get ready for evidence on the next date of adjournment, as it is an identified case. Call on 8.9.2015.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 31st day of August, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2015
R.C.No.169 of 2014
Between:
1. M.A. Lateef S/o. Late M.A Raheem, Aged 65 years, Occ: Business,
2. M.A. Waheed S/o. Late M.A. Raheem, Aged 62 years, Occ: Business,
3. Mohd Omer S/o. Late M.A. Raheem, Aged: 50 years, Occ: Business,
All are R/o.H.No.1-10-175, Opposite Hyderabad Public School, Begumpet, Hyderabad. …. Petitioners
And
Vijaya & Company represented by its proprietor P.L. Swamy S/o. Late D. Laxmaiah, aged 82 years, Occ: Business, shop at 1-4-908/2, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Srinivas Bazar, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri P. Nagabhushanam, Advcate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent are present. Petitioner No.1 and respondent are present. Both parties filed joint memo stating that the respondent has handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioners on 11.9.2015 by handing over the keys and the petitioners and respondent agreed that they will not claim anything whatsoever in respect of the petition schedule property and pray the court to dismiss the petition as not pressed.
The memo is recorded. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of September, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2015
R.C.No.277 of 2014
Between: Smt. Faheema Parveen W/o. Mohd Khaja Fariduddin, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o.1-1-379/204/1, Ashoknagar X Roads, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
1. Mohd Muner S/o Not known, age: Major, Occ: Buisness, R/o. H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
2. Zafar Ali Baig S/o. Late Faree Ali Baig, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Service, R/o.H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
3. Qauisar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 50 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. H.No.6-2-112, Bistiwada, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.
4. Anwar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, aged about 48 years, Occ: Pvt service, R/o.H.No.9-10-68/A/40/4, Reshambagh, Golconda, Hyderabad.
5. Mazhar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-210/2/V, st.No.2 Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.
6. Smt. Rafat Salma W/o. Mohd Nizamuddin, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Husewife, R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
7. Ms. Sabeha Fareed D/o. Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 33 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o.C/o.Mohd Nizamuddin, H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad.
8. Smt. Nomina Fareed W/o. Md. Anwarullaha Asif Aged 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.2-1-568/9, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.
9. Afroz Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged 28 years, Occ: Student, R/o.C/o.Smt. Rafat Salma R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Sopan Rao Patil, Advocate for petitioner and of I. Sujatha, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner has filed the petition against the respondent for eviction. The husband of the petitioner has filed his chief examination affidavit as PW.1. There is no dispute by the respondent with regard to relationship of the petitioner with PW.1 as wife and husband.
Section 120 of Indian Evidence Act reveals that in all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband and wife or any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses.
In Jupudi Sriranganayakulu Vs. Bonagiri Subbalakshmi reported in 1997(4) ALT 740, the Hon’ble court held that the non examination of the landlady in the facts and circumstances of the case is not at all fatal and even though the petition for eviction is filed by the landlady on the ground of bonafide requirement, the premises is, in fact, required bonafide by her husband and the fact as to the requirement of the premises is very well known to the husband of the landlady also and he is neither a stranger nor a mere attorney on behalf of the landlady and therefore it cannot be said that PW.1 husband is not competent to speak to the fact in issue and it cannot be said that the landlady alone is the right person to speak about the requirement and law of evidence requires proof of a fact which is pleaded by a party by way of adducing cogent and reliable evidence and the fact so pleaded must not necessarily be proved it through any of the modes that is required under the law of evidence and the state of mind of the landlady in this case is the requirement of the premises for use by her husband and the said fact is proved by her by examining her husband and when the fact pleaded is proved, it is not necessary for the Court to probe into the competency or otherwise of the witness who is examined to prove the said fact and if all the requirements of sec.10(3) of the Act are fulfilled, that will be enough to grant the relief that is sought for by the landlady and therefore the non examination of the landlady is not fatal.
For the foregoing reasons, it is obvious that PW.1 is competent witness to depose on behalf of the petitioner herein.
Accordingly the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is overruled. For further cross examination of PW.1, call on 22.9.2015
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 14th day of September, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2015
R.C.No.276 of 2014
Between: Smt. Faheema Parveen W/o. Mohd Khaja Fariduddin, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o.1-1-379/204/1, Ashoknagar X Roads, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
1. Mohd Muner S/o Not known, age: Major, Occ: Buisness, R/o. H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
2. Zafar Ali Baig S/o. Late Faree Ali Baig, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Service, R/o.H.No.1-1-18/210, TRT-168, Jawahar Nagar, R.T.C. X Road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
3. Qauisar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 50 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. H.No.6-2-112, Bistiwada, A.C Guards, Hyderabad.
4. Anwar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, aged about 48 years, Occ: Pvt service, R/o.H.No.9-10-68/A/40/4, Reshambagh, Golconda, Hyderabad.
5. Mazhar Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig, age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-210/2/V, st.No.2 Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.
6. Smt. Rafat Salma W/o. Mohd Nizamuddin, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Husewife, R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
7. Ms. Sabeha Fareed D/o. Fareed Ali Baig Aged about 33 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o.C/o.Mohd Nizamuddin, H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad.
8. Smt. Nomina Fareed W/o. Md. Anwarullaha Asif Aged 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.2-1-568/9, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad.
9. Afroz Ali Baig S/o. Late Fareed Ali Baig
Aged 28 years, Occ: Student, R/o.C/o.Smt. Rafat Salma R/o.H.No.1-7-105, Risala Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Sopan Rao Patil, Advocate for petitioner and of I. Sujatha, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner has filed the petition against the respondent for eviction. The husband of the petitioner has filed his chief examination affidavit as PW.1. There is no dispute by the respondent with regard to relationship of the petitioner with PW.1 as wife and husband.
Section 120 of Indian Evidence Act reveals that in all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband and wife or any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses.
In Jupudi Sriranganayakulu Vs. Bonagiri Subbalakshmi reported in 1997(4) ALT 740, the Hon’ble court held that the non examination of the landlady in the facts and circumstances of the case is not at all fatal and even though the petition for eviction is filed by the landlady on the ground of bonafide requirement, the premises is, in fact, required bonafide by her husband and the fact as to the requirement of the premises is very well known to the husband of the landlady also and he is neither a stranger nor a mere attorney on behalf of the landlady and therefore it cannot be said that PW.1 husband is not competent to speak to the fact in issue and it cannot be said that the landlady alone is the right person to speak about the requirement and law of evidence requires proof of a fact which is pleaded by a party by way of adducing cogent and reliable evidence and the fact so pleaded must not necessarily be proved it through any of the modes that is required under the law of evidence and the state of mind of the landlady in this case is the requirement of the premises for use by her husband and the said fact is proved by her by examining her husband and when the fact pleaded is proved, it is not necessary for the Court to probe into the competency or otherwise of the witness who is examined to prove the said fact and if all the requirements of sec.10(3) of the Act are fulfilled, that will be enough to grant the relief that is sought for by the landlady and therefore the non examination of the landlady is not fatal.
For the foregoing reasons, it is obvious that PW.1 is competent witness to depose on behalf of the petitioner herein.
Accordingly the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is overruled. For further cross examination of PW.1, call on 22.9.2015
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 14th day of September, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 8th day of September, 2015
E.P.No.1 of 2015
IN O .S.No.527 of 2010
Between: Vijaya Bank, Malakpet branch, Hyderabad. …. Decree holder
And
1. B.S. Jagadeesan S/o G. Balakrishna Nair, Occ: constable, Working in CISF Unit, BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.
2. G.S. Prasad S/o. G. Gopalan, Occ: Constable,
Working in CISF Unit, BDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.
.. Judgment debtors
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V.L. Narsimha Rao, Advocate for decree holder and of the judgment debtors remained exparte in the main suit and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Process not paid. Petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th day of September, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2015
R.C.No.2 of 2014
Between: Mohd Pasha S/o. Mohd Madar, aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, shop No.2, MCH No.8-3-166/1/A, Erragadda, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
Smt. Farzana Begum W/o. Late Shaik Hameed, aged about 65 years, Occ: Household, rep. by her GPA holder Mohd Masood S/o. M.A.Rahman, aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.8-3-730, Imamguda, Yellardyguda, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch. Ranga, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 3.30 p.m.
The case is again called at 3.30 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel
for petitioner called absent. No representation. Though sufficieint time is
granted petitioner did not turn up to adduce evidence. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 21st day of August, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2015
R.C.No.45 of 2015
Between:
1. S.Lakshminarayana S/o. Adavaiah, aged 81 years, Occ: Retired employee,
2. S. Venkateshwarlu S/o. K. Lakshminarayana, Aged 44 years, Occ: Advocate,
3. S. Madhukaran S/o. S. Lakshminarayana, Aged 40 years, Occ: unemployed,
4. Smt. Nirmala Devi S/o. S. Lakshminarayana, Aged 39 years, Occ: Advocate, 5 S. Srikanth S/o. Lakshminarayana, aged 38 years, Occ: Private service,
6. S. Gowri S/o. S. Lakshminarayana, Aged 39 years, Occ: Housewife,
All are R/o.5-5-873, Goshamahal, Hindinagar, Hyderabad. …. Petitioners
And
Mohd Sardar S/o. Mohd Yaseen, aged about 62 years, Tenant of mulgi in premises bearing No.5-5-212/11, Patelnagar, Behin Govt. Gowdon, Nampally Road, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pramod Kinhalkar, Advocate for petitioners and of respondent remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioners has filed memo stating that due to mediation of well wishers and elders the respondent has vacated the petition schedule premises and handed over the vacant possession of petition schedule premises to the petitioners and petition is not pressed. The memo is recorded. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 5th day of June, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 4th day of September, 2015
R.C.No.168 of 2014
Between:
1. M.A. Lateef S/o. Late M.A Raheem, Aged 65 years, Occ: Business,
2. M.A. Waheed S/o. Late M.A. Raheem, Aged 62 years, Occ: Business,
3. Mohd Omer S/o. Late M.A. Raheem, Aged: 50 years, Occ: Business,
All are R/o.H.No.1-10-175, Opposite Hyderabad Public School, Begumpet, Hyderabad. …. Petitioners
And
Ambica Stores represented by its proprietor D. Mohan Kumar S/o. Late D. Ramulu, aged 48 years, Occ: Business, shop at 1-4-908/1, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Srinivas Bazar, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri P. Nagabhushanam, Advcate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Learned counsels for petitioners and respondent are present. Petitioner No.1 is present. Respondent is present. The learned counsel for petitioners has filed memo stating that the respondent has delivered vacant and peaceful possession of the petition schedule property to the petitioners by handing over the keys on 4.9.2015 and the petitioners and respondent undertake that there will not be any claims in future by both the parties and the petition is not pressed. The memo is recorded. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 4th day of September, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2015
R.C.No.148 of 2012
Between: Raja Bahadur Venkata Rama Reddy Educational Socity rep. by its Secretary Sri S.V.N. Reddy S/o. S. Ramchandra Reddy, having its office at Hanuman Tekdi, Abids, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner
And
Mens Fashion Tailor Rep. by its proprietor Syed Asger Shah Khalidi S/o. Late Syed Omer Shah Khalidi Aged about 59 years, Occ: Business, Tenant in premises bearing No.4-1-882/1/35GF, RBVR Reddy Hostel shopping complex, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T. Sanjay Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri A. Tulsi Raj Gokul, Advcate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner is present. The learned counsel for petitioner has filed memo through petitioner stating that the case has been settled out of court and respondent is paying the increased rent to the petitioner and petitioner is willing to not press the petition and prays the court to dismiss the petition. The memo is recorded. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 10th day of July, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2015
R.C.No.150 of 2014
Between: M/s Bhagwandas Girdhardas Private Family Temple Trust Rep. by its Trustee Seth Gopaldas Bhagwandas Shah S/o. Late Bhagwandas Shah, aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o.107, Hill Ridge Villas, ISB Road, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. …. Petitioner/landlord
And
Sri Srinivas S/o. Late Krishna Aged major, Occ: Business, in P.No.4-4-112, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/tenant
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri R. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner and learned counsel for petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 3.30 p.m.
The case is again called at 3.30 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel
for petitioner called absent. No representation. Though sufficient time is
granted and conditional orders passed but petitioner did not adduce evidence. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of August, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 8th day of September, 2015
E.P.No.9 of 2015
IN O .S.No.835 of 2010
Between: Vijaya Bank, Malakpet branch, Hyderabad. …. Decree holder
And
1. Mr. N. Mothilal S/o N. Kapoorya, Occ: Driver, aged about 43 years, APSRTC, Midhani Depot, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.
2. Mr. N. Dasarath S/o. N. Keshya, Occ: Driver, aged about 46 years, APSRTC, Midhani Depot, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.
.. judgment debtors
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V.L. Narsimha Rao, Advocate for decree holder and of the judgment debtors remained exparte in the main suit and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Process not paid. Petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th day of September, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2015
R.C.No.234 of 2013
Between:
1. Zafar Ali S/o. Mr. Haji Ashiq Ali, Muslim, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Service, R/o. New York, USA
2. Khozemath Hussain Sultana S/o. Mr. Haji Mukarram Husain, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Service, R/o. New York, USA.
Both rep. by their GPA holder Mr. Ali Jaffar S/o. Ali Mohammed, Muslim, age about 35 years, Occ: Service, R/o.21-4-154/1, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad. …. Petitioners
And
Mohd Sayeed S/o. Mohd Usman, Muslim, aged about 58 years, Occ: Business in Mulgi No.11-4-808, situated at Bazaar Ghat, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri P.S. Sai Babu, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The matter is kept aside till 4.05 p.m for the petitioners’ side evidence.
The matter is again called at 4.05 p.m. Petitioners called absent. No representation. Though sufficient time is granted and condition order passed petitioners did not turn up for evidence. It seems petitioners have no interest in the case. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of January, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2015
R.C.No.233 of 2013
Between:
1. Zafar Ali S/o. Mr. Haji Ashiq Ali, Muslim, Aged about 46 years,
Occ: Service, R/o. New York, USA
2. Khozemath Hussain Sultana S/o. Mr. Haji Mukarram Husain, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Service, R/o. New York, USA.
Both rep. by their GPA holder Mr. Ali Jaffar S/o. Ali Mohammed, Muslim, age about 35 years, Occ: Service, R/o.21-4-154/1, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad. …. Petitioners
And
Mohd Yousuf S/o. Not known to the petitioner, aged about 53 years, Occ: Business in Mulgi bearig M.No.11-4-809, situated at Bazaar Ghat, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri P.S. Sai Babu, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The matter is kept aside till 4.05 p.m for the petitioners’ side evidence.
The matter is again called at 4.05 p.m. Petitioners called absent. No representation. Though sufficient time is granted and condition order passed petitioners did not turn up for evidence. It seems petitioners have no interest in the case. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of January, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 20th day of August 2015
R.C.No.46 of 2013
Between: M/s. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society Rep. by its Secretary Sama Narsimha Reddy S/o. Bal Reddy, Aged about 49 years, R/o.office H.No.17-2-581, Madannapet, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioner
And
B. Davender Reddy S/o. B. Naryan Reddy Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business in Madannapet Market monda, part of M.No.17-2-581, Madannapet market, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Yadi Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri R. Mahender Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 2.50 p.m.
The case is again called at 2.50 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel
for petitioner called absent. The case has been coming for the evidence of
petitioner since 29.7.2015. Though condition orders passed the petitioner did not turn up to adduce evidence. It seems the petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of August 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 31st day of August 2015
R.C.No.215 of 2014
Between: Mohd Younus S/o. Late Moh Yousuf Aged 45 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o.17-3-194/62, Yasarab Nagar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.
Petitioner
A n d
1. Mohd Mahmood Khan S/o. Yousuf Khan Aged 38 years, Occ: Business,
2. Smt. Arjuman Khatoon W/o. Mehmood Khan Aged 33 years, Occ: Household, Both are R/o. H.No.23-3-78, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad.
…. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri J. Mohan Singh, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Rajesh Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Learned counsel for respondents is present. The petitioner requested time to deposit the rent amount as ordered in I.A.52 of 2015, but though sufficient time is granted to petitioner in I.A.200 of 2015, the petitioner did not turn up and did not deposit the rent amounts and not availed the time granted by the court. The case is kept aside till 4.10 p.m.
The case is again called at 4.10 p.m. Petitioner and learned counsel
for petitioner called absent, no representation. Though sufficient time is
granted the petitioner did not adduce any evidence. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 31st day of August 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL… I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 13th day of August 2015
I.A.No.284 of 2009
IN
R.C.No.242 of 2002
Between: Anirudh Prasad S/o. Late Sri Johrilal Aged about 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.21-2-600, Urdu Galli, Patel Market, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner
A n d
1. M/s. Maheshchand Benigopal, rep by G. LIngaiah S/o. G. Ramaiah, aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.21-6-319, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad.
2. New Reliance Type Writing & Shorthand Institute & Xerox Centre rep. by G. Lingaiah S/o. G. Ramaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.NO22-5-63, Charkaman Road, Hyderabad and R/o.H.No.21-6-319, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad.
…. Respondents/Respondents.
3. Sri Atma Prakash S/o. Late G. Lingaiah Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.22-5-63, Charkaman Road, Hyderabad and also R/o.H.No.21-6-319, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad.
4. Sri Venu S/o. Late G. Lingaiah, aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.22-5-63, Charkaman Road, Hyderabad And also R/o.H.NO.21-6-319, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad.
5 Smt. G. Lalitha W/o. Late G. Lingaiah Aged about 60 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.NO.22-5-63, Charkaman Road, Hyderabad and also R/o.H.No.21-6-319, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad. (Respondents NO.3 to 5 are impleaded as per the orders in I.A.181 of 2011, Dt.21.8.2014)
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of S. Ashok Anand Kumar, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K. Buchi Babu, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for respondents has filed memo stating that the petitioner has failed to pay amount to respondents No.3 to 5 and deviated the orders and without any specify order or permission to send money order is abusing the process of law.
The learned counsel for petitioner has filed memo along with returned money order coupons stating that out of 3 money orders 2 money orders returned and postman orally informed that the addressee refused to receive the same and permit to pay costs to Bar Association.
The matter is kept aside till 4.00 p.m., for hearing of both counsels.
The matter is again called at 4.00 p.m. The learned counsels for petitioner and respondents are present. The learned counsel for petitioner has tendered costs to the learned counsel for respondents, but the learned counsel for respondents has refused to recive costs of Rs.600/- from the learned counsel for petitioner and left the court.
The learned counsel for petitioner has filed memo stating that the petitioner has sent Rs.600/- to respondents No.3 to 5 thorugh money orders and 2 of the same have been returned and postman orally informed him that the respondents refused to receive the same and on 13.8.2015 he waited till 4.00 p.m., to pay costs to the respondents or their counsel, but the counsel for respondents refused to receive costs.
The learned counsel for petitioner has filed money order receipts dt.25.7.2015 on 31.7.2015 showing that he sent costs through money order to respondents No.3 to 5. The matter was posted to 13.8.2015 for the acknowledgement. The learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents are present and the learned counsel for respondents has filed memo stating that the petitioner has filed memo stating that the petitioner has sent costs through money order to respondents and not complied the order. The learned counsel for petitioner has stated that he has sent costs through money orders to respondents No.3 to 5, but out of them 2 money orders were refused and filed the returned money orders. Anyhow the learned consel for petitioner is ready to pay costs to the learned counsel for respondents who appeared
before the court today. But the learned counsel for respondents has
refused to receive costs in the open court. Hence there is no other option except to direct the learned counsel for petitioner to pay costs to Bar Association. Hence the learned counsel for petitioner is directed to pay costs to the Bar Association and file receipt.
Costs paid and receipt filed. Condition complied with. Hence petition is allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of August 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.M.K.Padmavathi,
Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 29th day of June 2013
E.A.No.36 of 2012
IN
E.P.No.28 of 2012
IN
R.C.No.462 of 2007
Between: Amtus Salam Begum W/o. Late Mir Ali Mohammed Khan Aged about 66 years, Occ: Household, R/o.23-1-405, Hussaini Kothi, Alijah Kotla, Rangeli Khidki, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
1. Abdulla S/o. Jaffar Mohammed (Ahmed) @ Jaffar, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Employee,
2. Mohammed Abdul Raheem S/o. Late Haji Abdul Kareem Aged about 58 yers, Occ: Business, Both are R/o. 23-1-432/2, Hussaini Kothi, Hyderabad. …. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Abdul Samad, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.29.6.2013
Call on 8.7.2013.
Sd/-
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 29th day of June, 2013.
SD/-
SMT. M.K. Padmavathi
PRL. RENT CONTROLLER
FAC I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
E.A.No.36 of 2012
IN
E.P.No.28 of 2012
IN
R.C.No.462 of 2007
Between: Amtus Salam Begum W/o. Late Mir Ali Mohammed Khan Aged about 66 years, Occ: Household, R/o.23-1-405, Hussaini Kothi, Alijah Kotla, Rangeli Khidki, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
1. Abdulla S/o. Jaffar Mohammed (Ahmed) @ Jaffar, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Employee,
2. Mohammed Abdul Raheem S/o. Late Haji Abdul Kareem Aged about 58 yers, Occ: Business, Both are R/o. 23-1-432/2, Hussaini Kothi, Hyderabad. …. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Abdul Samad, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.5.3.2013
Chief affidavit of PW.1 filed along with petition under Order 26 Rule 1 of CPC. Check and put up. Call on 6.2.2013
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.3.4.2014
I.As filed under check and put up. Call on 7.4.2014.
Sd/-
Written and pronounced by me in open court.
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
E.A.No.36 of 2012
IN
E.P.No.28 of 2012
IN
R.C.No.462 of 2007
Between: Amtus Salam Begum W/o. Late Mir Ali Mohammed Khan Aged about 66 years, Occ: Household, R/o.23-1-405, Hussaini Kothi, Alijah Kotla, Rangeli Khidki, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
1. Abdulla S/o. Jaffar Mohammed (Ahmed) @ Jaffar, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Employee,
2. Mohammed Abdul Raheem S/o. Late Haji Abdul Kareem Aged about 58 yers, Occ: Business, Both are R/o. 23-1-432/2, Hussaini Kothi, Hyderabad. …. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Abdul Samad, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.18.11.2014
The learned counsel for petitioner has filed petition under Order 17 Rule 1 read with section 151 CPC praying the court to adjourn the matter stating that PW.2 has been suffering from kidney pain. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to produce PW.2 on the next date of adjournment. Call on 3.12.2014.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.9.12.2014
The learned counsel for petitioner filed petition under section 151 CPC. I.A. Pending. Call on 18.12.2014.
Sd/-
DOCKET ORDER DT.1.6.2015
EA. Pending. Call on 8.6.2015.
Written and pronounced by me in open court.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri L. Sreenivas Naik,
Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5h day of August, 2014
E.A.No.36 of 2012
IN
E.P.No.28 of 2012
IN
R.C.No.462 of 2007
Between: Amtus Salam Begum W/o. Late Mir Ali Mohammed Khan Aged about 66 years, Occ: Household, R/o.23-1-405, Hussaini Kothi, Alijah Kotla, Rangeli Khidki, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
1. Abdulla S/o. Jaffar Mohammed (Ahmed) @ Jaffar, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Employee,
2. Mohammed Abdul Raheem S/o. Late Haji Abdul Kareem Aged about 58 yers, Occ: Business, Both are R/o. 23-1-432/2, Hussaini Kothi, Hyderabad. …. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Abdul Samad, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER DT.5.8.2014
E.A.NO.9 of 2014 and 10 of 2014 are allowed as per orders above E.A, For cross of PW.2. Call on 25.8.2014.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 5th day of August, 2014.
SD/-
SRI L. SREENIVASA NAIK
PRL. RENT CONTROLLER
FAC I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri L. Sreenivas Naik,
Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
I/C I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2015
I.A.No.201 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.82 of 2012
1. M.A. Aziz (died per Lrs)
2. Naseem Jahan W/o. Late M.A. Aziz, aged 33 years, Occ: Business,
3. Mohd Abdul Sami S/o. Late M.A. Aziz, aged 18 years, occ: Student,
4. Moh Abdul Samad S/o. M.A. Aziz, aged 16 years, minor under the Guardianship of his mother the petitioner No.2 herein Naseem Jahan,
5. Baby Iqra Aziz D/o. Late M.A. Aziz, aged 9 years, Minor under the Guardianship of her mother the petitioner No.2 herein Naseem Jahan All areR/o.20-6-415, Shalibanda, Charminar, Hyderabad. .
.. Petitioners/Respondents
A n d
1. Dharmender Sharma S/o. Late Surajmal Sharma, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.3-5-141/2B, Eden Garden, Hyderabad.
2. Rajesh Agarwal S/o. Late Bajranglal Agarwal, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.44, B.N. Reddy colony, Road NO.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
3. Abhishek Agarwal S/o. Tejnarayan Agarwal, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-2-618/J, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
4. Rahul Sharma S/o. Radhesham Sharma, aged about 25 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 3-5-141/2B, Eden Garden, Hyderabad.
5. Kamal Nayan Agarwal S/o. Ravinder agarwal, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.44, B.N. Reddy Colony, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents/Petitioners
6. M.A. Quddus S/o. Late M.A. Razzak, aged about 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 20-6-415, Rooplal Bazar, Shalibanda, Hyderabad.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.A. Rahman, Advocate for petitioners and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petition filed under section 109(2) of CRP, and the same is allowed and matter advanced from 3.9.2015 to 18.8.2015. Both parties and ther counsel called present, and they filed a joint memo and same recorded. Hence, the present petition is dismissed in view of joint memo filed by both parties.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of August, 2015.
SD/-
SRI L. SREENIVAS NAIK
I/C. I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2014.
E.A.No.36 of 2012
IN
E.P.No.28 of 2012
IN
R.C.No.462 of 2007
Between: Amtus Salam Begum W/o. Late Mir Ali Mohammed Khan Aged about 66 years, Occ: Household, R/o.23-1-405, Hussaini Kothi, Alijah Kotla, Rangeli Khidki, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
And
1. Abdulla S/o. Jaffar Mohammed (Ahmed) @ Jaffar, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Employee,
2. Mohammed Abdul Raheem S/o. Late Haji Abdul Kareem Aged about 58 yers, Occ: Business,
Both are R/o. 23-1-432/2, Hussaini Kothi, Hyderabad. …. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Abdul Samad, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioner has filed petition under Order 17
Rule 1 read with section 151 CPC praying the court adjourn the matter stating that PW.2 has been suffering from kidney pain. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to produce PW.2 on the next date of adjournment. Call on 3.12.2014.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of November 2014.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2015.
E.P.No.5 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.108 of 2014
Between: Mrs. Noorunnissa Begum W/o. Abdul Basheer Khan, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.NO.12-2-60, First Floor, Murad Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyerabad. .. decree holder
And
Mrs. Ameena Bee W/o. Late Mohd Mujeeb, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Tailor, R/o.H.No.12-2-60, Second Floor, Murad Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.
…. Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Ismail, Advocate for decree holder and of Sri G.V.V.A Prasanam, Advocate for the judgment debtor and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
ORDER
Court bailiff has filed report along with executed warrant and delivery receipt stating that possession of schedule property is delivered to decree holder. Decree holder has filed delivery receipt. Delivery effected.
Hence EP is terminated.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 12th day of
August, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2015.
E.P.No.5 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.108 of 2014
Between: Mrs. Noorunnissa Begum W/o. Abdul Basheer Khan, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.NO.12-2-60, First Floor, Murad Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyerabad. .. decree holder
And
Mrs. Ameena Bee W/o. Late Mohd Mujeeb, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Tailor, R/o.H.No.12-2-60, Second Floor, Murad Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.
…. Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohammed Ismail, Advocate for decree holder and of Sri G.V.V.A Prasanam, Advocate for the judgment debtor and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
ORDER
E.A.39 of 2015 and E.A.40 of 2015 are allowed. Issue delivery warrant along with break open lock and police protection on payment of process. Call on 12.8.2015.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 22nd day of
July, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2015.
I.A.No.171 of 2015
IN
I.A.No.419 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.108 of 2014
Between: Mrs. Ameena Bee W/o. Late Mohd Mujeeb, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Tailor, R/o.H.No.12-2-60, Second Floor, Murad Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Respondent
And
Mrs. Noorunnissa Begum W/o. Abdul Basheer Khan, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.NO.12-2-60, First Floor, Murad Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyerabad. …. Respondent/Petitioner
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.V.V.A Prasanam, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Mohammed Ismail, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioner has filed petition under Order 17 Rule 1 read with section 151 CPC stating that due to some unavoidable circumstances he is unable to attend the court to proceed with the matter and requested time.
The learned counsel for respondent has opposed the petition.
The petitioner herein is the advocate for petitioner in I.A.419 of 2014.
The I.A.419 of 2014 is posted subject to condition to pay costs and file counter.
The petitioner has paid costs, but has not filed counter and not whispered in petition to grant time to file coutner.
The petitioner has not complied the order in I.A.419 of 2014. Hence the petitin is dimissed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 6th day of
July, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2015.
I.A.No.419 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.108 of 2014
Between: Mrs. Ameena Bee W/o. Late Mohd Mujeeb, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Tailor, R/o.H.No.12-2-60, Second Floor, Murad Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Respondent
And
Mrs. Noorunnissa Begum W/o. Abdul Basheer Khan, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.NO.12-2-60, First Floor, Murad Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyerabad. …. Respondent/Petitioner
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.V.V.A Prasanam, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Mohammed Ismail, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
ORDER
Costs paid. Memo filed. The learned cunsel for petitioner has filed petition under order 17 Rule 1 read with section 151 CPC stating that due to some unavoidable circumstances he is unable to attend the court to proceed with the matter and I.A.171/2015 is dismissed.
Counter not filed. Condition not complied with. Hence petition is dismissed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 6th day of July, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2015
R.C.No.14 of 2012
Between: Aleemuddin Khan S/o. Late RAheemuddin Khan Aged 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-2-555/1 Aghapura, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Md. Irfan S/o. Late Md. Rafeeq, Aged 21 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.20-4-1203/1, Lad Bazar, Charminar, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Amit A. Ganu, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The matter is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 4.25 p.m. The matter is again called at 4.25 p.m. Petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 2nd day of April, 2015
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2015
R.C.No.134 of 2012
Between: Raja Bahadur Venkata Rama Reddy Educational Socity rep. by its Secretary Sri S.V.. Reddy S/o. S. Ramchandra Reddy, having its office at Hanuman Tekdi, Abids, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Smt. Rahamat Shams W/o. Iqbal Ahmed Aged 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.10-3-68/A/2, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad, Tenant in premises bearing No.4-1-881/2, RBVR Reddy Hostel Shopping Complex, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T. Sanjay Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Syed Masood Ali, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed memo stating that the parties settled the matter out of court and prays the court to dismiss the petition. The memo is recorded. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo, the petition is dismssed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of April, 2015
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi,
I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2015
R.C.No.135 of 2012
Between: Raja Bahadur Venkata Rama Reddy Educational Socity rep. by its Secretary Sri S.V.. Reddy S/o. S. Ramchandra Reddy, having its office at Hanuman Tekdi, Abids, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Mr. Iqbal Ahmed S/o. Faqheer Mohammed Aged 62 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.10-3-68/A/2, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad, Tenant in premises bearing No.4-1-881/1, RBVR Reddy Hostel Shopping Complex, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T. Sanjay Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Syed Masood Ali, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed memo stating that the matter is settled out of court and prays the court to dismiss the petition. The memo is recorded. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo, the petition is dismssed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of April, 2015
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2015
R.C.No.133 of 2013
Between:
1. Sri Satish Kumar S/o. Late Lzxminarayan. Aged about 56 years, Occ: Business,
2. Sri Mukesh Kumar S/o. Late Sri Laxminarayan, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Business,
3. Sri Naresh Kumar S/o. Late Sri Laxminarayan, Aged 52 years, Occ: Business, All are R/o.8-2-615/A/1, Plot No.2, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
Sri Omprakash S/o. Sri Gulab Chand, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, Tenant of Mulgi NO.21-2-617, Patel Market, Urdugalli, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri K. Anoop Kumar, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioners 1 to 3 called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evience of petitioners. Though sufficient time is granted on conition orders petitioners did not turn up to adduce evidence. It seens petitioners have no interest in the petition.
Hence petition is dismisse for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of April, 2015
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 4th day of May, 2015
R.C.No.212 of 2013
Between: Syed Munnawar S/o. Late Syed Kareem Aged about 54 years, Bank Employee, R/o.13-6-437/7/A/2, Khader Bagh, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Shbana Begum D/o. Syed Mohd Siddiqui, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Household, R/o.10-2-522, Asifnagar, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri N. Anil Kumar, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M.A. Basha, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
PW.1 called absent. No representation. Costs not paid. The case is coming for the continuation of chief examination of PW.1 an kept aside till 1 p.m.
The matter is again called at 1 p.m. Petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence the petition is dimsised for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of May, 2015
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 8th day of April 2015
R.C.No.431 of 2011
Between: M/s Dattatreya Colony Welfare Association Represented through his secretary Y. Jayantha Rao, Age: 68 years,
Office at R/o.H.No.12-1-331/165, Dattatreya Colony Welfare Association Buildings, Dattatreya Colony, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. K. Balakrishna Rao S/o. Late Ganga Raju, Age about 68 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.12-1-331/54, Dattatreya Colony, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.
2. Mrs. Anjali Devi W/o. K. Balakrishna Rao Aged about 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.12-1-331/54, Dattatreya Colony, Asifnagar, Hyderabad. . Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Sashi Bhushan, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Y.V.S.S.Siva Sarma, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the hearing of petitioner. Though sufficient time is granted petitioner did not turn up. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of April, 2015
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2015
E.P.No.9 of 2015
IN
EP.No. 2 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.137 of 2014
Between:
Devanand Tanpure S/o. Late Niranjan Rao Tanpure Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.NO.13-5-184, Amlapur, Karwan, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Decreeholder
A n d
Babu Rao Shinde S/o. Shiv Ram Shinde Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.13-5-184, First Floor, Amlapura, Karwan, Hyerabad. … Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Manik Lal Yadav, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
The bailiff has filed report dt.31.3.2015 along with unexecuted warrant stating that one Mohan is residing in the schedule property and at the time of his visit the said Mohan was not present and his wife was present and picked up quarrel with bailiff and decree holder and hence warrant was not executed. The bailiff also mentioned in the report that judgment debtor was not present in the schedule property.
The bailiff has not mentioned in the report that schedule property was locked as averred by the petitioner and the presence of judgment debtor was also not mentioned by the bailiff. Unless the same was mentioned by the bailiff the court cannot pass any order for break open lock.
Under the circumstances the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The court bailiff has not also specifically mentioned that there was resistence took place in the schedule property. Hence it is desirable to issue fresh warrant of delivery. Accoridngly E.A. is disposed of.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 2nd day of April, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi I Addl.Rent Controller, FAC II Addl. Rent Controller,Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2015
E.P.No.4 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.341 of 2011
Between:
Smt. Ameenunnisa Begum W/o. Anees Ahmed Aged 60 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.16-9-31, 1st floor, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. Smt. Faizunnisa Begum W/o. Late Mohammed Ghouse, Age: 49 years, Occ: Business,
2. Mohammed Siraj S/o. Late Mohammed Ghouse, Age 26 years, Occ: Business,
3. Mohammed Riyaj S/o. ate MOhamme Ghouse, Age: 24 years, Occ: Business at Mulgi No.16-9-30/1, Ground floor, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
… Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Shiva Shekar, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
D O C K E T O R D E R
Orders proounced.
Issue delivery warrant on payment of process. Call on 22.4.2015.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of March, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
FAC II ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER,
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2015
E.P.No.7 of 2014
IN
EP.No. 19 of 2006
IN
R.C.No.385 of 2005
Between:
Smt. M. Kalavathi W/o. M. Sriramulu Aged 65 years, Occ: Household, R/o.13-4-238 & 238/B, Sabzimandi, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder/Petitioner
A n d
1. C. Govind Kumar S/o. C. Chennagiri, aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.13-4-238/6, Sabzimandi, Hyderabad.
2. B. Eshwaraiah S/o. B. Babaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.13-3-1049/26, Near Pochamma Temple, Zia Guda, Hyerabad.
… Judgment debtors/Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Manik Prabhu, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
E.A.54 of 2014 is dismisse. E.A.55 of 2014 is dismissed.
Since E.A.54 of 2014 and E.A.55 of 2014 are dismissed the E.P. is closed and terminated.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 9th day of February, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2015
R.C.No.269 of 2014
Between:
1. Smt. Papudi Bai W/o. Late Sri Basanthilal Agarwal, Aged about 74 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.21-1-753, Patel Market, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad-500 002.
2. Sri Shankarlal Agarwal S/o. Late Sri Bsanthilal Agarwal, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot NO.1057-B, Road NO.52, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
3. Sri Pramod Kumar Agarwal S/o. late Sri Basanthilal Agarwal, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o.21-1-753, Patel Market, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad.
4. Sri Sunil Kumar AGarwal S/o. Late Sri Basanthilal Agarwal, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o.21-1-753, Patel Market, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad.
5. Smt. Babita Bai W/o. Sri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Gyanbagh Colony, Hyderabad. Petitioners NO.1 and 3 to 5 are represented by their General Power Of Attorney, the petitioner No.2/
.. Petitioners
A n d
Sri Mujahid Ali Khan S/o. Late Sri Hamid Ali Khan Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business
R/o. 20-4-233/4, Khilwat Ground near Do Khabar, Hyderabad. . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Shyam S. Agarwal, Advocate for petitioners and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner No.2 is present. The learned counsel for petitioners is present and filed memo stating that petitioners do not wish to proceed with the matter and prays the court to dismiss the petition as not pressed. The memo is recorded. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of March, 2015
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi
I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2015
E.P.No.01 of 2015
IN
R.C.No.192 of 2014
Between:
Mohd Farook Mohiuddin S/o. Late Ahmed Mohiuddin Aged about 56 years, Occ: Land lord, R/o.20-4-226/13/13A, Khilwt, Hyderabad
.. Decreeholder
A n d
Mohd Fazil S/o. MOhd Afzal, aged about 40 years, Occ: Auto garage, R/o. First Floor of H.No.18-7-316/B/5, Yakuthpura, Hyerabad. … Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Hamid Iqbal Ali, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Decree holder is present. Bailiff filed report along with executed warrant stating that possession of schedule property was delivered to decree holder and also filed report stating that the wife of judgment debtor had received the belongings of judgment debtor and endorsement of wife of judgment debtor. Decree holder filed delivery receipt. Delivery recorded. Hence E.P. is terminated.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 27th day of February, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD. Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2014
R.C.No.124 of 2013
Between:
1. Satish kumar S/o. Late laxminarayan, Aged 56 years, Occ: Business,
2. Mukesh Kumar S/o. Late Sri Laxminarayan, Aged 54 years, Occ: Business,
3. Naresh Kumar S/o. Late Sri Laxminarayan, Aged 52 years, Occ: Business All R/o.H.No.8-2-615/A/1, Plot No.92, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
Sri Omprakash S/o. Sri Gulab Chand, aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, Tenant of Mulgi No.21-2-617, Patel Market, Urdugalli, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri Gopal Rao Patil, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri K. Anoop Kumar, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner’s counsel filed the memo submitting that the petition schedule premises is vacated and handed over the petition schedule premises to petitioners with help of mediators out of court.
Further evidential RC is not pressed further prayed this court to dismiss this RC. Memo recorded. In the view memo the RC is dismissed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 25th day of March, 2014.
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPEDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri L. Sreenivas Naik,
Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2014
E.P.No.21 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.388 of 2011
Between:
1. Haridarshan Yadav S/o. Late Sri Lakhanlal Yadav Aged 41 years, Occ: Business
2. Jagan Yadav S/o. Late Sri Lakhanlal Yadav, Aged 39 years, Occ: Nil Both are R/o. H.No.14-5-244, Bearwadi, Lambi Galli, Shah Inayath Gunj, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholders
A n d
Sri Marutirao WAghmare S/o. Motiram, aged 58 years Occ: Business, R/o.15-8-283, Machili Market, (Fish Market), Begum Bazar, Hyderabad and R/o.19-1-924/A/28, Murali Nagar, Golla Khidki, Puranapool, Hyderabad. .. Judgment Debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Gopal Rao Paril, Advocate for decree holders and of Sri Aditya Kuamr Jaiswal, Advocate for the judgment debtor and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The counsel for both parties filed memo stating that judgment debtor handed over vacant possession to decree holders. The son of judgment debtor who is GPA holder handed over the key in the open court.
Heard. Hence, the EP is terminated the record.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of August, 2014.
SD/-
SRI L. SREENIVAS NAIK
FAC. I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2015
E.P.No.20 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.76 of 2014
Between:
Dachepally Purnachander S/o. Late D. Ramaiah
Aged about 70 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.15-2-455, Kishangunj, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
1. Jindal Trading Company a partnership firm rep. by its partners Ravinder Kumar S/o. Ramchander Gupta aged 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 15-1-601, Siddiamber bazaar, Hyderabad also R/o.5-2-526 & 527, Risalabdulla, Hyderabad.
2. Mahender Kumar S/o. Ramchander Gupta Aged 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o.15-1-601, Siddamber bazaar, Hyderabad also R/o.5-2-526 & 527, Risalabdulla, Hyderabad. … Judgment debtors
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s Mittapalli Srinivas, Advocate for decreeholder and and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Bailiff has filed report dt.5.2.2015 along with executed warrant stating that possession of schedule mulgies are delivered to decree holder.
Delivery receipt of decree holder filed. Delivery recorded. Inventory list filed. E.P. closed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of February, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
I.A.No.169 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.209 of 2009
Between: Gouri Shankar Sanghi S/o. Late Shamsunder lal Sanghi Aged about 67 years, Occ: Advocate R/o.21-2-444, Mitti-ka-sher, Charkaman, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/petitioner
A n d
Mani Rao S/o. R. Balraj, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Business, H.No.15-2-66, Gowliguda Chaman, Hyderabad. . Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Prashanth Kumar, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Sunil Kamthankar, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDERS DT.1-7-2014 TO 9-12-2014
DT.1-7-2014:-
For counter call on 15.7.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.15-7-2014:-
Counter not filed. Time extended for counter as last chance. Call on 23.7.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.23.7.2014:-
Counter not filed. Time extended for counter as no further time call on 4.8.2014.
Sd/-
DT.4.8.2014:- For counter call on 21.8.2014
Sd/-
Dt.21.8.2014:- Counter not filed. Time extended for counter as last chance. Call on 4.9.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.4.9.2014:- Counter not filed. At request of learned counsel for respondent time extened on condition that respondent shall file counter on the next date of adjournment. Call on 5.9.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.5.9.2014:- Countr not filed. At request of learned counsel for respondent time extended for condition that respondent shall file counter on the next date of adjournment. Call on 10.9.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.10.9.2014:- Coutner filed. For enquiry Call on 16.9.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.16.9.2014:- Both not ready. Call on 24.9.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.24.9.2014:- Te learned counsel for petitioner has represented that he has not received copy of counter. Hence the respondent is directed to serve counter copy and give notice to petitioner by the next date of adjournment. Call on 7.10.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.7.10.2014:- At request of learned counsel for petitioner time extended for coutner call on 16.10.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.16.10.2014:- Coutner filed on 10.9.2014. For enquiry Call on 28.10.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.28.10.2014:- Both not ready call on 5.11.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.5.11.2014:- Both not ready call on 7.11.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.7.11.2014:- Petitioner’s counsel is present and ready for argue the matter. Respondent’s counsel called absent. Respondent shall get ready for enquiry on the next date of adjournment. Call on 11.11.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.11.11.2014:- Heard learned counsel for petitioner. For respondent’s side hearing time extended as last chance. Call on 14.11.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.14.11.2014:- At request of learned counsel for respondent time extended for hearing. Call on 18.11.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.18.11.2014:- Counter not filed. Time extended for coutner. Cal on 25.11.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.25.11.2014:- It is found on record that respondent filed counter on 10.9.2014 and heard learned counsel for petitioner. For respondent’s side hearing call on 28.11.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.28.11.2014:- For hearing of respondent. Call on 1.12.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.1.12.2014:- For hearing call on 3.12.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.3.12.2014:- For hearing call on 8.12.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.8.12.2014:- For hearing call on 9.12.2014.
Sd/-
Dt.9.12.2014:- For hearing Call on 11.12.2014
Sd/-
Written and pronounced by me in open court.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.M.K.Padmavathi,
Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2013
E.P.No.32 of 2010
IN
R.C.No.486 of 2009
Between: Nikat Parveen W/o. MOhd Vikaruddin Ali Khan Aged 55 years, Occ: Landlady, R/o.3-6-527, Street No.7, Himayath nagar, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d Mohd Shujauddin Ali Khan S/o.Vikaruddin Ali Khan Aged 29 years, R/o.8-2-603/1/13 to 18, Plot No.102, Solitan Banga Apartment, Krishnapuram Road No.10, Banjarahills, Hyderabad. .. Judgment Debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Damodar Mundra, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
No representation for decreeholder since longtime it seems decree holder is not interested in this E.P. Hence this EP is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 26th day of July, 2013.
SD/-
SMT. M.K.PADMAVATHI
FAC. I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD. Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2014
R.C.No.93 of 2013
Between: Syed Ale Hasan S/o. Syed Shah Abdul Khader Aged about 73 years, (Senior Citizen), Occupation Landlord R/o. H.No.12-2-790/112, Ayodhya Nagar Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyerabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Jameel Ahmad Khan S/o. Late Khaleel Ahmed Khan, Aged abpit 30 years, Occ: Business,
2. Jaleel Ahmad Khan S/o. Late Khaleel Ahmed Khan, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Business,
3. Sohel Ahmad Khan S/o. Late Khaleel Ahmed Khan Age about 34 years, Occ: Business,
4. Sara Begum D/o. Late Khaleel Ahmed Khan Aged about 32 years, Occ: Household
5. Shakeel Ahmad Khan S/o. Late Khaleel Ahmed Khan Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, All are R/o.H.No.16-2-16, Sayeedabad, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri P. Pandu Ranga Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Kishore Rai, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Both counsels present. Memo filed by petitioner counsel submitting that the petitioner/landlord has not pressing the RC and prays to dismiss. Memo recorded in the view of memo this RC permitting to withdraw and therefore this RC is dismissed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 28th day of February, 2014.
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPEDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2014
R.C.No.219 of 2013
Between:
1. Mrs. Susheela Bai W/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Household
2. Ashok Kumar Jaju S/o. late Ramnivas Jaju, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Business
3. Nand Kishore Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business
4. Rajesh Kumar Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business
5. Laxminivas Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju Aged about 63 years, Occ: Business
6. Brij Gopal Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business
7. Kmal Kishore Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business All are R/o.20-2-9 to 12, Old Kaburtar Khanana, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
M. Vijay Kumar S/o. M. Krishna Aged Major, M.No.21-3-205,
Moosa Bowli, Hyderabad. .. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri N. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri Mohd Ashraf Ali, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Both parties present. Memorandum of compromise filed.
Order 23 Rule 3. Memorandum of compromise recorded. In the view of terms and conditions of the memorandum of compromise this petition allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of January, 2014.
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPEDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.M.K.Padmavathi,
Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2013
R.C.No.386 of 2011
Between:
1. Naram Balamma W/o. Late Somaiah Aged about 60 years, Occ: Housewife,
2. Naram Ramlila W/o. Ramulu, D/o. Late Somaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Housewife,
3. Naram Virat S/o. Late Somaiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Private Service,
4. Naram Hariman S/o. Late Somaiah, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Private service,
5. Jeevan Jyothi W/o. Mahender D/o. Late Somaiah, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Housewife,
6. Sandhya Rani D/o. Late Somaiah, Aged about 24 years, All are R/o. H.No.13-1-13/2/68/A, Amarnagar colony, Mangalhat, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d P. Balaram @ Balaiah S/o. Kistaiah, aged about 30 years, Occ: Private service, R/o.Plot No.18, Sanjay Nagar, Gowliguda Chaman, Near Gurudwara, Hyderabad. (Amended as per order in I.A.No.195 of 2012, dt.3.5.2013)
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Manohar Babu, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K. Malleswara Rao, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
No representation for petitioner. Conditional order not complied.
Hence it seems the petitioner is not interested in this RC.
Hence this R.C. is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 12th day of Noember, 2014.
SD/-
SMT. M.K.PADMAVATHI
FAC. I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.M.K.Padmavathi,
Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2013
R.C.No.73 of 2012
Between: Smt. Abida Begum W/o. Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim, Muslim, aged about 49 years, Occ: Household, rep. by her GPA holder Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim S/o. Mohd Khaja Qureshi, Muslim, aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o.17-4-205, Jhanda Galli, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d M. Manik Nivas Rao S/o. Late M. Balram, Hindu,
Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business in Mulgi No.17-4-210, Bada Bazar, Yakootpura, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R. A. Krishna, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri R. Prakash, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Counsel for the petitioner filed memo stating that this matter is settled out of court and the respondent vacated and handed over petition schedule premises to the petitioner. Hence in view of memo this
RC is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 28th day of Noember, 2014.
SD/-
SMT. M.K.PADMAVATHI
FAC. I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 21st day of January 2015
E.P.No.14 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.472 of 2009
Between: B. Ramprakash S/o. Late B. Kamalaiah, Age 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o.5-2-514 & 859 to 862, 1st floor, Risala Abdullah, Osmangunj, Hyderabad.
.. Decreeholder
A n d
M/s. Mukesh Trading Company, reptd. by partner Gopalji G Majethia, S/o. Govindji Majethia, Age 60 years, Occ: Business at D.No.15-2-637, Risala Abdullah, Osmangunj, Hyderabad. R/o.D.No.15-4-206, Rikshaw Galli, Gowliguda, Hyderabad..
… Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri M. Shiva Shekar, Advocate for decree holder and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
The court bailiff has filed report dt.5.1.2015 along with executed warrant and delivery receipt from decree holder stating that possession of schedule mulgi is delivered to decree holder and articles are handed over to judgment debtor. Delivery recorded. Hence EP is terminated.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 21st day of January, 2015.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2014
E.P.No.18 of 2013
IN
R.C.No.712 of 1999
Between:
1. Shri Shivaraj Sanghi (died on 6.10.2011) as per L.Rs.
2. Smt. Savitri Bai Sanghi S/o. Late Shivraj Sanghi, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Household,
3. Mr. Anil Sanghi, S/o. Late Shivraj Sanghi, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business,
4. Mr. Mukesh Sanghi S/o. Late Shivraj Sanghi, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,
5. Mr. Naveen Sanghi S/o. Late Shivraj Sanghi, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, All are R/o.D.No.3-13-72/2/6, Plot NO.B-32, Raghavendranagar Colony, Opp: Natioal Police Academy, Shivarampally, Hyderabad. (As per the orders in CRPMP No.7438/2011 in
CRP NO.5998 of 2005 before the Hon’ble High Court)
.. Decreeholders/Petitioners
A n d
Sri Keshav Deo Dalmia (Partner M/s Dalmia Brothers) S/ol. Ghan Shyam Das Dalmia, Aged about 79 years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.21-1-393, Rikab Gunj, Hyderabad.
… Judgment debtor/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri N. Chandradhar Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Papa Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Decreeholders called absent. No representation. The matter is coming for hearing of decreeholder and kept aside till 4.10 p.m.
Degreeholders or their counsel are not present. It seems decreeholders have no interest in the matter. Hence EP is closed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 20th day of October, 2014.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2014
R.C.No.210 of 2014
Between:
Mrs. Veena Jain W/o. K.C. Jain, aged 64 yers, Occ: Household/Landlady, R/o.H.No.4-7-951, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Landlady
A n d
M. Urmila W/o. Devender Kumar, aged about 62 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.3-2-94, Nimboliadda, Hyderabad.
. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Srinivas Choudhary, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri C.N. Murthy, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed memo stating that the matter has been settled in between the parties amicably out of court and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 22nd day of December, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2014
E.P.No.15 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.157 of 2013
Between: Mohammed Javeed Ali S/o. Late Mohammed Murad Ali, aged 46 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.9-8-440/A/3, Opp: Central Bank Lane, Chotabazar, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Decreeholder
A n d
Manohar Kumar S/o. Parameshwar, Aged 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.9-1-B/150, Hashimnagar, Langarehouze, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri K. Karam Chander Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Bailiff filed report stating that property delivered to decree holder.
Filed delivery receipt of decree holder. E.P. property delivered to decreeholder. Hence EP is closed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 14th day of November, 2014.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2014
E.P.No.13 of 2013
IN
R.C.No.371 of 2011
Between:
1. M/s. Daya Clinic its proprietors Dr. A.S. Yadav And S.K. Murthy, H.No.5-8-497, Cirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad.
2. A.S. Yadav S/o. A. Jangaiah Yadav, Age 53 years, O/c Doctor\ 5-8-497, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad.
3. S.K. Murthy S/o. Late S. Hushaiah, Age 53 years,
O/c Doctor 5-8-497, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad.
.. Decree holders A n d
Arifa Fareed D/o. Mr. Fareed Ahmed Aged 68 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, H.No.5-8-497, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad.
…Judgment debtor.
This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R. Prakash, Advocate for decreeholders and of Sri Khaja Moinuddin, Advocate for Judgment Debtor and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
O R D E R
Though sufficient time is granted decree holder has not taken any steps. Hence EP is closed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of December, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2013
I.A.No.57 of 2014
IN
O.S.No.119 of 2007
Between: Mohammed Yousuf @ Pasha Bhai S/o. Mohammed Ibrahim, aged about 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.6-3-1241/19, (6-3-1233/8 Old), Maqta Madar Saheb,
Opp, Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Plaintiff
A n d
1. Mohammed Abdul Raheem, S/o. Abdul Kaeem, Aged 55 years, Occ: Business,
2. Mohammed Abdul Saleem S/o. Abdul Kareem, Aged 48 years, Occ: Business, Both are R/o. H.No.6-3-1241/22, Maqta Madar Saheb, Opp Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad.
3. The President, Indira Welfare Association, D.No.6-3-1241/1, Maqta Madar Saheb, Opp. Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents/Defendants
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Waseemuddin Kaisar, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri S.A. Jaweed Zama, Advocate for respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Both parties absent. No representation in spite of condition waiting up to 5 p.m. Therefore this petition is dismissed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 20th day of December, 2013.
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPEDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2014
R.C.No.345 of 2012
Between:
P. Venkateshwar Rao S/o. Rangaiah Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.no.19-1-912/A/32, Murlinagar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
N. Mogalaiah S/o. N. Timmaiah Aged about 60 years, Occ: Labour R/o.H.No.19-1-1024/1, Gollakidiki, Hyderabad. ` . Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri I. Ramesh, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Vikash Joshi, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 2.50 p.m. Petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of December, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2014
I.A.No.261 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.379 of 2010
Between:
Deewan Ranveer Sinha S/o. Late B. Deewan Sinha Aged 65 years, Occ: Architect, H.No.3-4-468/1, First Floor, Hyerabad.
.. Petitioner/Respondent
A n d
1. Saleha Sultana Mohammed, W/o. Mohd Ali Nahdi(late) Aged 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o.8-13-141/110, Near Kings Colony, Shastripuram, Hyderabad.
2. Salem Ali Binyameen Nahdi, S/o. Late Mohd Ali Nahdi(late) Occ: student, aged about 29 years,
3. Hamad Ali Binyameen Nahdi S/o. Late Mohd Ali Nahdi(late) Occ: Student, aged about 27 years,
4. Hassan Ali Binyameen Nahdi S/o. Late Mohd Ali Nahdi(Late Occ: student, aged about 26 years,
5. Yousuf Ali Binyameen Nahdi S/o. Late Mohd Ali Nahdi(Late) Occ: Student, aged about 25 years, All the above 2 to 5 are residents of 3-2-373, Kachiguda, Nimboliadda, Hyderabad.
6. Randheer Sinha S/o. Late B. Deewan Sinha, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o.3-4-468/1,
Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. Respondent No.6 set exparte in the main RC as such He is not a necessary party.
… Respondents/petitioners
This cheque petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
CHEUQE PETITION ORDER
Issue cheque in favour of Deewan Ranveer Sinha for an amount of
RS.32,800/- (Thirty two thousand and eight hundred rupees only) towards full satisfaction of arrears of rent on proper identification and acknowledgment.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 6th day of September, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi,
I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2014
E.P.No.13 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.366 of 2008
Between:
Anjuman-e-Moin-Ul-Akwan, Asafia Kingdom rep. by its Secretary Sri Mir Sabir Ali S/o. Mir Ahmed Ali, Aged about 55 years, Office at 22-8-361, Alawa-e-Sartouq Mubarak Darulshifa, Hyderabad
.. Petitioner/DHR
A n d
1. Kaneez-e-Abida Begum W/o. Late Sidique Hussain Aged about 62 years, Occ: Household, R/o.22-8-361, Alawa-e-Sartouq Mubarak, DArulshifa, Hyderabad.
2. Mirza Sadiq Hussain Bakhtar S/o.Zaindul Abed in @ Qamer Bhai, aged not known, Occ: Business, R/o.22-7-430, Inside Dewdi Baquer Nawaz Jung Purani Haveli, Hyerabad. … Respondents/JDRS .
This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M Mehdi Hussain, Advocate for petitioner and of the respondents called absent and they were set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
O R D E R
Bailiff filed report stating that schedule property is delivered to the decreeholder and also field delivery report of decree holder. Delivery recorded. Hence E.P. is terminated.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of September, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2014
R.C.No.479 of 2011
Between:
1. Mumtaz Jahan D/o. Mohd Azam Hussain W/o. Mohd Nazim Khan, aged about 26 years, Occ: Household
2. Rayees Jahan D/o. Mohd. Azam Hussain Aged about 22 years, Occ: Household
Both are R/o.11-2-668, situated at Habeeb Nagar, Mallapalli, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
Mohd Shafi S/o. Late Mhd Jahangir Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business R/o.11-2-653, Habeeb Nagar, Mallapalli, Hyderabad.
. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Murali Narayan Bung, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri I.V. Radha Krishna Murthy, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioners called absent. The matter is coming for the evidence of petitioners. The matter is kept aside till 5 p.m. No medical report filed as directed by the court. No representation. The petitioners did not turn up to adduce evidence though sufficient time is granted. It seems petitioners have no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 9th day of September, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2014
I.A.No.473 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.354 of 2011
Between:
Smt. Mamidi Rukmini W/o. Mamidi Gnaneshwar Aged about 54 years, Occ: Housewife R/o.H.No.23-4-764 & 765, Sultan Shahi, Hyerabad.
.. Petitioner/petitioner
A n d
Sukka Chenna Keshavulu S/o. Late Narsimha Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Portion of H.No.23-4-765, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad.
. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Narsing Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Ravinder Raju, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
The learned counsel for petitioner has cross examined RW.1 on 11.12.2014 in part and requested the court to adjourn the matter for continuation of cross examination of RW.1. The RW.1 is present in the court for further cross examination. The court has adjourned the matter to today for continuation of cross examination of RW.1 on condition that petitioner shall complete the cross examination of RW.1 without taking further time on the next date of adjournment as it is an identified case.
The petitioner has taken sufficient time and filed the petition at the belated stage. The petition filed by the petitioner U/sec.11(1) of Rent Control Act will be decided. The pending of Sec.11(1) of Rent Control Act will not preclude the proceedings in the main RC. There are no bonafides in the petition filed by the petitioner except to drag on the proceedings. Hence the petition is dismissed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of December, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2014
R.C.No.354 of 2011
Between:
Smt. Mamidi Rukmini W/o. Mamidi Gnaneshwar Aged about 54 years, Occ: Housewife R/o.H.No.23-4-764 & 765, Sultan Shahi, Hyerabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Sukka Chenna Keshavulu S/o. Late Narsimha Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Portion of H.No.23-4-765, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad.
. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Narsing Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Ravinder Raju, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, thecourt passed the following;
O R D E R
RW.1 is present. The learned counsel for petitioner has filed petition under Order 17 Rule 1 read with section 151 CPC praying the court to adjourn the RC and the same is dismissed.
RW.1 recalled and sworned for further cross examination. The learned counsel for petitioner did not proceed for further cross examination. Hence the further cross examination of RW.1 is treated as nil.
Te learned counsel for petitioner has filed petition U/s.11(1) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act read with section 151 of CPC. I.A. pending call on 17.12.2014.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of December, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2014
R.C.No.354 of 2011
Between:
Smt. Mamidi Rukmini W/o. Mamidi Gnaneshwar Aged about 54 years, Occ: Housewife R/o.H.No.23-4-764 & 765, Sultan Shahi, Hyerabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Sukka Chenna Keshavulu S/o. Late Narsimha Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Portion of H.No.23-4-765, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad.
. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Narsing Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Ravinder Raju, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, thecourt passed the following;
O R D E R
RW.1 recalled and examined in further chief examination and in cross in part. Ex.R.6 marked. At request of learned counsel for petitioner time extended for continuation of cross examination of RW.1 on condition that petitioner shall complete the cross examination of RW.1 without taking further time on the next date of adjournment, as it is an identified case. Or else the further cross examination of RW.1 will be treated as nil. Call on 16.12.2014.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of December, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.M.K.Padmavathi, B.A.,LL.B.,
Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
FAC I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2013
R.C.No.304 of 2012
Between: Dattatreya Jadhav S/o. Late Tuljaram Jadhav Aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.5-3-89, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Smt. Sunder Bai W/o. Satyanarayana, aged about 77 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.14-10-191, Lower Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.
2. Uday Sain S/o. Sri Chandra Sain, aged 60 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.NO.15-3-78, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.
3. Smt. Anila Kumari W/o. Late Sri Kiran Sain, aged 50 years, Occ: House wife
4. Sri K. Chotam Sain S/o. Late Kiran Sain, aged 30 years, Occ: Business,
5. Sri K. Lalit Sain S/o. Late Kiran Sain, aged 29 years, Occ: Business
Respondents No.3 to 5 are R/o.15-3-19 to 21, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M/s. Takur Singh, Advocate for petitioner and of
Sri Devender Pershad Jaisal, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri P. Tirumal Rao, Advocate for the respondents No.3 to 5 and of respondent No.1 remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
No representation for respondents No.3 to 5. Counter not filed. Conditional order not complied. Hence right of filing counter by respondents No.3 to 5 is forfeited. Hence for enquiry call on 19.6.2013.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of June, 2013.
SD/-
SMT. M.K.PADMAVATHI
FAC. I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5th day of September, 2014
R.C.No.392 of 2010
Between: Nagari Vaibhav S/o. Nagari Vinod, Hindu Aged about 28 years, Occ: Business, R/o.13-2-369/1
Rahimpura, yderbad
.. Petitioner
A n d
Shri Megji Suni S/o. Late Megji Nehru, Hindu Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, Proprietor Of M/s. Sunil Traders in premises bearing door No.15-6-351/2, Nagari Market, Begum bazaar, Hyderabad
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Srinivas Chamala, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. Though sufficient time is granted petitioner did not turn up for cross examination. The matter is kept aside till 4.10 p.m. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the matter. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 5th day of September, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2014
R.C.No.32 of 2010
Between: Smt. B. Rukkamma(died) per LR. Ms.B. Uma Rani D/o. Late B. Chennaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ: unemployee, R/o.4-1-508 and 509, Troop Bazaar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. 1. Smt. Saloni Devi Jaiswal W/o. Sri Mangal Prasad Jaiswal Age: about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o.10, Temple street, Kolkatta-700 072 Tenant in shop No.4-1-509/2, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad.
2. Smt. Reena Jaiswal W/o. Sri Shyam Sunder Jaiswal Age: about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o.13, Ramakrishna Estate Jawahrlal Nehru Road, Hyderabad. Business at shop No.4-1-509/2, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri S.S. Agarwal, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The court sent the Ex.R.20 to Ex.R.25 along with the admitted signatures of Smt.B. Uma Rani to expert for comparison as per the orders in I.A.183 of 2013 dt.11.7.2013.
The Director FSL returned the documents vide file dt.12.9.2013 stating to send some more admitted signatures of Smt. B.Uma Rani around the period 1993-94 for the purpose of comparison.
Later the case was adjourned for further evidence of respondent at the request of the learned counsel for respondents on several conditional orders from time to time. The learned counsel for the respondents had taken time from 9.5.2014 to 4.6.2014 and from 4.6.2014 to 11.6.2014 and from 11.6.2014 to 12.6.2014 and from 12.6.2014 to 16.6.2014 and from 19.6.2014 to 20.6.2014.
The learned counsel for the respondents has filed a memo in the office on 19.6.2014 to send Ex.R.20 to Ex.R.25 along with admitted signatures available on record. On the memo of the respondents the court had again sent Ex.R.20 to Ex.R.25 along with admitted signatures of Smt. Uma Rani to the director, FSL, Hyderabad on 3.7.2014 for comparison and report directing the director to compare the signatures of Ex.R.20 to
Ex.R.25 with the RC petition, vakalat in RC.32 of 2010 filed in the above case and signatures of PW1 in deposition and submit report.
The director FSL again retuned the documents vide file dt.21.7.2014 stating that unless the admitted signatures of concerned person with contemporary year is provided it is not possible to offer any opinion basing on the available standards.
On 24.7.2014 the court put a docket note “documents returned from FSL, Hyderabad. At request of learned counsel for respondents time extended for hearing”. Meanwhile petitioner filed a petition under Rule 19(1) of AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules and Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC., in I.A.242 of 2014 and a petition under Rule 28 of CRP in I.A.243 of 2014 and I.As were pending and I.A.242 of 2014 was allowed on 18.9.2014 and I.A.243 of 2014 was allowed on 19.9.2014 and after carried out the amendment though sufficient time was granted, the respondents counsel did not file additional counter and it seems the respondents have no
additional counter. The respondents filed a petition under Rule 8(3) of AP
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules in I.A.390 of 2014 and it was allowed on 19.11.2014 and the respondents filed additional counter.
The case was pending for further evidence of respondents from 21.11.2014 to 26.11.2014. From 27.11.2014 to 28.11.2014 on conditional orders.
The learned counsel for the respondents again filed memo on 28.11.2014 stating that inspite of best efforts of respondents, PW.1 did not furnish her account details to enable the respondents to take steps to get signatures of contemporary period and as such the respondents are not in a position to obtain signatures of PW.1 of the same period and praying the court to resend the documents to the FSL along with letter to go ahead with the available signatures for comparison, opinion and report in respect of signatures of PW1.
The petitioner filed reply stating that on memo filed by the respondents is misconceived.
Already the court had sent documents available to FSL for comparison, but the director FSL categorically mentioned that unless contemporary signatures are provided it is not possible to offer opinion.
The learned counsel for the respondents again prayed the court to send the same documents which were already sent to the FSL earlier.
Under the circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, the court is of the opinion that sending the same documents repeatedly to the FSL will not serve any purpose except to drag on the case which is of 2010.
Hence the respondents are directed to adduce further evidence if any on the next date of adjournment. Or else the further evidence of the respondents shall be closed. Call on 10.12.2014..
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 5th day of December, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2014
R.C.No.479 of 2011
Between:
1. Mumtaz
.. Petitioner/landlady
A n d 1.M/s. Datta & Co., Rep. by Partner Vinay Parekar, S/o. Late Dattatraya Rao Parekar, Aged 42 years, Occ: Business R/o.5-3-303, Top Khana, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
2. Vinay Parekar S/o. Late Datatraya Rao Parekar, Aged 42 years,
3. Vivek Parkar S/o. Late E. Dattatraya Rao Parekar, Aged 40 years, Occ: Business All are R/o.5-3-303, Top Khana, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Benkatlal Mandhani, Advocate for petitioner and of
Sri Praveen Vyapari, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. PW.1 is also called absent. The petition is coming for the affirmation and for marking of documents by
PW.1. No representation. It seems the petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 6th day of June, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2014
R.C.No.270 of 2012
Between: P. Sridhar S/o. P.V. Narayan Reddy Aged about 35 years, Occ: Govt. Employee
Rep. by his GP Smt. P. Chandrakala W/o. P.V. Naraya Reddy, aged about 68 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.Plot No.1268-A, Jubilee Hills, Hyerabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
K. Malla Reddy S/o. K. Sanga Reddy Aged abouat 54 years, Occ: Busines R/o. Shop No.8-2-293/82/A/1268/A/1/A, Built on road NO.63/A, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T. Bheem Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri G.N. Raju, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the
I.A.302 of 2013 which is filed U/R 19(1) of A.P. Buildings Control Rules 1961 and the I.A.302/13 is dismissed. Since steps not taken against the respondent the petition against respondent is abated.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 5th day of June, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2014
R.C.No.284 of 2009
Between: Mr. Abdul Waheed S/o. Abdul Rasheed Aged 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o.17-2-1231/12 Yakutpura, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d 1.Mr. Mohd Gaziuddin Iqbal S/o. Late Ghayauddin Aged about 69 years, Occ: Business, R/o.17-2-4, Yakutpura, Hyderabd.
2. Mohd Iftekar Ahmed Siddiqui S/o. Late Nawab Abdul Salam Siddiqui, aged about 55 years, Occ: Business R/o.17-2-1136, Madannapet, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri T. Sanjay Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri S. Balchand, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and of Sri A.R. Karwa, Advocate for respondent No.2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner has filed memo through his counsel stating that the petitioner does not wish to continue the case further and prays the court to dismiss the case as not pressed.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 15th day of July, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD. Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2014
R.C.No.224 of 2013
Between:
1. Mrs. Susheela Bai W/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Household
2. Ashok Kumar Jaju S/o. late Ramnivas Jaju, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Business
3. Nand Kishore Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business
4. Rajesh Kumar Jaju S/o. Late Ramnivas Jaju, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business
5. Laxminivas Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju Aged about 63 years, Occ: Business
6. Brij Gopal Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business
7. Kmal Kishore Jaju S/o. Late Govindram Jaju Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business All are R/o.20-2-9 to 12, Old Kaburtar Khanana, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
M. Vijay Kumar S/o. M. Krishna Aged Major, M.No.21-3-205,
Moosa Bowli, Hyderabad. .. Respondent
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF AP BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT & EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri N. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri Mohd Ashraf Ali,
Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner counsel present and endorses not press the RC in view of compromise of 219/13. Therefore this petition is closed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of January, 2014.
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPEDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2014
E.P.No.17 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.112 of 2014
Between:
R. Pentaiah S/o. R. Venkaiah, Aged about 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Rikabgunj, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Decreeholder
A n d
B. Kumar Swamy, S/o. B. Mallaiah, Aged 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o.21-1-427/A, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Suresh Kumar Bang, Advocate for petitioner/decreeholder and of respondent/judgment debtor remained exparte in main RC and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Court bailiff filed delivery warrant executed along with report dt.29.10.2014. Delivery receipt of decreeholder filed.
The report is recorded and E.P. is closed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of October, 2014.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2014
R.C.No.286 of 2012
Between: Smt. Nirmala Devi Bangad W/o. Brij Lal Bangad, Aged 63 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.5-3-303, Top Khana, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/landlady
A n d 1.M/s. Datta & Co., Rep. by Partner Vinay Parekar, S/o. Late Dattatraya Rao Parekar, Aged 42 years, Occ: Business R/o.5-3-303, Top Khana, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
2. Vinay Parekar S/o. Late Datatraya Rao Parekar, Aged 42 years,
3. Vivek Parkar S/o. Late E. Dattatraya Rao Parekar, Aged 40 years, Occ: Business All are R/o.5-3-303, Top Khana, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Benkatlal Mandhani, Advocate for petitioner and of
Sri Praveen Vyapari, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. PW.1 is also called absent. The petition is coming for the affirmation and for marking of documents by
PW.1. No representation. It seems the petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 6th day of June, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2014
R.C.No.63 of 2009
Between: G. Ajay, S/o. Late Hanumanth Rao, Age: about 23 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. C-18, B.N. Reddy Towers, Bhasheerbagh, Hyderabad, AP
.. Petitioner
A n d
M/. J.D. Electronics, represented by its managing partner Sri Dharam Chand Sethia, having its business at ground floor
Of “Laxmi Estates” bearing M.No.4-1-825, J.N. Road, Abids, Hyderabad, A.P.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Sri Srinivas Chamala, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is present. The learned counsel for petitioner has filed memo through petitioner stating that petitioner and respondent have settled the dispute and renewed tenancy by executing and registering lease deed dt.20.10.2014 and also executed another agreement dt20.10.2014 by and between the petitioner and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises and in view of the settlement between the parties out of court the petitioner has not pressed RC.63 of 2009 and prays the court to close the RC as not pressed.
The memo is recorded. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismissed as not pressed and adjusted out of court.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 25th day of November, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2014
R.C.No.53 of 2014
Between:
1. J. Dhana Lakshmi W/o. J. Mohan Kumar Aged 50 years, Occ: Household 2 J. Anita W/o. J. Krishna Kumar Aged 46 years, Occ: Household Both are R/o. Flat No.103, Rohit Heights, Lalapet, Secunderabad.
.. Petitioners/landlords
A n d K. Veereshwar Rao S/o. Late K Nagaiah Priprietor of M/s. South India Paints and Rosin and Hardware, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.NO.15-5-649, Ashok Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/tenant
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohd Shujauddin, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri N. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioner has filed memo stating that the respondent has handed over key to the petitioner on 17.11.2014 and the petitioner as not pressed the R.C.
The memo is recorded. In view of the reasons mentioned in the memo the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 20th day of November, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2014
R.C.No.72 of 2012
Between:
1. Mrs. Abdia Begum(died) Per Lrs.
2. Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim Qureshi, S/o. Mohd Khaja Qureshi, Muslim, Age about 58 years, Occ: Business R/o.17-4-205, Jhanda Galli, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.
3. Smt. Seema Begum W/o. Mohd Zubair Muslim, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Housewife R/o.17-3-740/A Chandranagar, Zaffar Road, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.
4. Mohammed Ismail Qureshi S/o. Mohd Khaja Qureshi Muslim, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o.17-4-205, Jhanda Galli, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.
5. Smt. Salma Bee W/o. Tanveer Moinuddin, Muslim Aged about 33 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.17-3-640, Zafar Road, Bada Bazar, Charminar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.
6. Smt. Banazir Qureshi W/o. Mohammed Zaki Qureshi Muslim, aged about 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.NO.16-11-310/2/7, Saleemnagar, Opp: TV Tower, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
8. Mohd Imra Qureshi S/o. Mohammed Ibrahim Qureshi, Aged 29 years, R/o. 17-4-205, Jhamala Gatti, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d Mr. Hakeem Mohammed Qursheed Ahmed S/o. Mohammed Ibrahim Saheb, Muslim, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business carrying in shop No.17-4-208, Bada Bazaar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri R. Prakash, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The matter is coming for the evidence of petitioners. The matter is kept aside till 4.00 p.m. Though sufficient time is granted and conditional orders passed petitioners did not turn up to give evidence. It seems petitioners have no interest in the matter. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 10th day of September, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2014
R.C.No.57 of 2012
Between: D. Venkata Narsimha Reddy (V.N. Reddy) S/o. D. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.16-11-20/1/3, Ground Floor, Saleem Nagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d B.N. Agarwal S/o. Late Umdilal, Aged about 72 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.4-6-544, Esmaia Bazar, Hyderabad..
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Srinath, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M.Srikanth, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. Case is coming for the marking of document by petitioner and kept aside till 3.15 p.m.
Petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 31st day of October, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2014
E.A.No.43 of 2014
IN
E.P.No.15 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.157 of 2013
Between: Mohammed Javeed Ali S/o. Late Mohammed Murad Ali, aged 46 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.9-8-440/A/3, Opp: Central Bank Lane, Chotabazar, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Decreeholder
A n d
Manohar Kumar S/o. Parameshwar, Aged 45 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.9-1-B/150, Hashimnagar, Langarehouze, Hyderabad.
… Respondent/Judgment debtor
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri K. Karam Chander Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Heard. The court bailiff has filed report along with unexecuted warrant stating that the schedule mulgi is locked.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the report I am inclined to allow the petition.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of October, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2014
R.C.No.20 of 2012
Between: Mohd Abdul Basith S/o. Late Mohd Abdul Kareem Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business Residing in portion of.H.No.13-1-297/A, Razdar Khanpet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d Mrs. Aijaz Sultana W/o. Mohd Shakeel Ahmed Aged about 41 years, Occ: housewife Residing in portion of H.No.13-1-297/A, Razdar Khanpet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Md. Tameezudin Ahmed, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M.A. Basith, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The matter is coming for the cross examination of PW.1 and kept aside till 12.35 p.m.
Petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 24th day of October, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller cum XIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2014
O.S.No.108 of 2010
Between: Vijay Bank Malakpet Branch Rep. by its Chief Manager Malakpet, Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiff
A n d
1. Gazaffar Hussain S/o. Late Sadiq Hussain Musli, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Junior Assistant O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad.
2. K. Laxmi Reddy S/o. K.P. Veera Reddy
Hidu, Aged about 43 years, Work Men, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad. …Defendants.
This suit is coming before me in the presence of Sri M. Sravan Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Paladugu Narayana, Advocate for defendant No.1 and of Sri Ch. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the defendant No.2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
O R D E R
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. The matter is coming for affirmation and for marking of documents and for the cross examination of plaintiff. The matter is kept aside till 12.30 p.m. The plaintiff did not turn up. It seems plaintiff has no interest in the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 5th day of June, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER; CUM
XIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil- I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER; CUM
XIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2014
R.C.No.246 of 2013
Between:
1. Mr. Reema Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 32 years, Occ: Landlady, R/o.11-4-649, AC Guards Hyderabad.
2. Ms. Mobina Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem khan Age: 30 years, Occ: Landlady
3. Ms.Khatija Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 26 years, Occ: Landlady
4. Ms. Farhath Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 24 year, Occ: Landlady
5. Ms. Sameera Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 22 years, Occ: Landlady Petitioners No.2 to 4 are R/o. H.No.8-2-596/5/2, Road No.8 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d M/s. Jasraj Roopchand(HUF) Rep. by its Karta Sri Jasraj Shrishrimal S/o. Late Shri Roop Chand, aged 62 years, Occ: C.A., R/o.H.No.15-1-503/C/10, Ashok Market, Feelkhana, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Basith Ali Yavar, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The matter is coming for the evidence of petitioners and kept aside till 4 p.m. Petitioners called absent. No representation. It seems petitioners have no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 10th day of November, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2014
R.C.No.245 of 2013
Between:
1. Mr. Reema Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 32 years, Occ: Landlady, R/o.11-4-649, AC Guards Hyderabad.
2. Ms. Mobina Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem khan Age: 30 years, Occ: Landlady
3. Ms.Khatija Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 26 years, Occ: Landlady
4. Ms. Farhath Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 24 year, Occ: Landlady
5. Ms. Sameera Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 22 years, Occ: Landlady Petitioners No.2 to 4 are R/o. H.No.8-2-596/5/2, Road No.8 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d M/s. Jasraj Roopchand(HUF) Rep. by its Karta Sri Jasraj Shrishrimal S/o. Late Shri Roop Chand, aged 62 years, Occ: C.A., R/o.H.No.15-1-503/C/10, Ashok Market, Feelkhana, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Basith Ali Yavar, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The matter is coming for the evidence of petitioners and kept aside till 4 p.m. Petitioners called absent. No representation. It seems petitioners have no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 10th day of November, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL… I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi,
I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2014
R.C.No.244 of 2013
Between:
1. Mr. Reema Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 32 years, Occ: Landlady, R/o.11-4-649, AC Guards Hyderabad.
2. Ms. Mobina Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem khan Age: 30 years, Occ: Landlady
3. Ms.Khatija Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 26 years, Occ: Landlady
4. Ms. Farhath Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 24 year, Occ: Landlady
5. Ms. Sameera Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 22 years, Occ: Landlady Petitioners No.2 to 4 are R/o. H.No.8-2-596/5/2, Road No.8 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d Pavani Devi W/o. Jasraj Shrishrimal Age: 52 years, Occ: Business R/o.15-1-503/C/10, Ashok Market, Feelkhana, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Basith Ali Yavar, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The matter is coming for the evidence of petitioners and kept aside till 4 p.m. Petitioners called absent. No representation. It seems petitioners have no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 10th day of November, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2014
R.C.No.243 of 2013
Between:
1. Mr. Reema Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 32 years, Occ: Landlady, R/o.11-4-649, AC Guards Hyderabad.
2. Ms. Mobina Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem khan Age: 30 years, Occ: Landlady
3. Ms.Khatija Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 26 years, Occ: Landlady
4. Ms. Farhath Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 24 year, Occ: Landlady
5. Ms. Sameera Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 22 years, Occ: Landlady Petitioners No.2 to 4 are R/o. H.No.8-2-596/5/2, Road No.8 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d Dungarchand Jethmal Tated S/o. Jethmal Tated, Age 45 years, Occ: Business Presently residing at Karnataka Rep. by GPA holder Sri Vikram Raj S/o. Jasraj, Age: 29 years, Occ: Chartered Accountant R/o.15-1-503/C/10, Ashok Market, Feelkhana, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Basith Ali Yavar, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The matter is coming for the evidence of petitioners and kept aside till 4 p.m. Petitioners called absent. No representation. It seems petitioners have no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 10th day of November, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL… I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2014
R.C.No.242 of 2013
Between:
1. Mr. Reema Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 32 years, Occ: Landlady, R/o.11-4-649, AC Guards Hyderabad.
2. Ms. Mobina Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem khan Age: 30 years, Occ: Landlady
3. Ms.Khatija Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 26 years, Occ: Landlady
4. Ms. Farhath Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 24 year, Occ: Landlady
5. Ms. Sameera Mehdi Khan D/o. Mehdi Saleem Khan Age: 22 years, Occ: Landlady Petitioners No.2 to 4 are R/o. H.No.8-2-596/5/2, Road No.8 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
.. PetitionerS
A n d Lalith Kumar Tated S/o. Jethmal Tated, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, presently residing at Sagar Shimoga Dist., Karnataka Rep. by GPA Sri Vikram Raj S/o. Jasraj, Age: 29 years, Occ: Chartered Accountant R/o.15-1-503/C/10, Ashok Market, Feelkhana, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Basith Ali Yavar, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioners called absent. No representation. The matter is coming for the evidence of petitioners and kept aside till 4 p.m. Petitioners called absent. No representation. It seems petitioners have no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 10th day of November, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
….NIL…
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2014
R.C.No.46 of 2010
Between: Seetaram Agarwal S/o. Sri Hanumanmal Agarwal Aged about 65 years, Occ; Proprietor of M/s Dhanwantri Corporation at shop No.5 H.No.15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Sri Satyanarayana Soni S/o. Late Sri Surajkaran Soni Age about 85 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.15-2-148, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
2. M/s Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its office at 15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Rep. by its Authorized person
3. M/s. Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its Regd. Office at 118, Vardhaman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharastra Rep. by its managing trustee.
4. Purushotham Das Soni S/o. Late Suraj Karan Soni Aged about 80 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-7-290, Esmia Bazar, Hyderabad, A.P., (Respondent No.4 is added vide orders in I.A.267 of 2010, Dt.19-8-2010)
.. Respondents
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9(3) OF AP BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT & EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 FOR DEPOSIT OF MONTHLY RENT.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Bheeshma Chary, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 3 and of Sri Kishore Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
I.A. 18 of 2014 is dismissed. At request of learned counsel for respondents time extended on condition that respondents shall get ready for further evidence if any on the next date of adjournment. Call on 9.10.2014.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 26th day of September, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2014
R.C.No.47 of 2010
Between: Kamlesh Kumar Kedia S/o. Shri Hanumanmal Agarwal Aged about 47 years, Occ: Prop. of M/s Sai Enterprises At shop NO.4, H.No.15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad, A.P.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Sri Satyanarayana Soni S/o. Late Sri Surajkaran Soni Age about 85 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.15-2-148, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
2. M/s Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its office at 15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Rep. by its Authorized person
3. M/s. Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its Regd. Office at 118, Vardhaman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharastra Rep. by its managing trustee.
4. Purushotham Das Soni S/o. Late Suraj Karan Soni Aged about 80 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-7-290, Esmia Bazar, Hyderabad, A.P., (Respondent No.4 is added vide orders in I.A.268 of 2010, Dt.11-8-2010)
.. Respondents
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9(3) OF AP BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT & EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 FOR DEPOSIT OF MONTHLY RENT.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Bheeshma Chary, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 3 and of
Sri Kishore Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
I.A. 19 of 2014 is dismissed. At request of learned counsel for respondents time extended on condition that respondents shall get ready for further evidence on the next date of adjournment, as it is an identified case. Call on 9.10.2014
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 26th day of September, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhutpathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2014
R.C.No.45 of 2010
Between: Seetaram Agarwal S/o. Sri Hanumanmal Agarwal Aged about 65 years, Occ; Proprietor of M/s Bhagawan Corporation at shop No.6 H.No.15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Sri Satyanarayana Soni S/o. Late Sri Surajkaran Soni Age about 85 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.15-2-148, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
2. M/s Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its office at 15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Rep. by its Authorized person
3. M/s. Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its Regd. Office at 118, Vardhaman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharastra Rep. by its managing trustee.
4. Purushotham Das Soni S/o. Late Suraj Karan Soni Aged about 80 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-7-290, Esmia Bazar, Hyderabad, A.P., (Respondent No.4 is added vide orders in I.A.266 of 2010, Dt.19-8-2010)
.. Respondents
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9(3) OF AP BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT & EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 FOR DEPOSIT OF MONTHLY RENT.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Bheeshma Chary, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 3 and of Sri Kishore Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
I.A. 17 of 2014 is dismissed. At request of learned counsel for respondents time extended on condition that respondents shall get ready for further evidence if any on the next date of adjournment, as it is an identified case. Call on 9.10.2014
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 26th day of September, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Friday, on this the 6th day of June, 2014
R.C.No.95 of 2011
M/s. Satyanarayana Soni Seva Sansthan, A Registered Charitable Trust, having branch Office at Soni Bhavan H.No.15-2-601 to 606 & 612 to 614, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Represented by it’s secretary Mr. Basant Kumar Soni, S/o. Sri Ramesh Chandra Soni, Age 32 years Occ: Business R/o. 15-2-204, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad 500012.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Sri Kamal Kishore Soni S/o. Hanuman Das Soni
Age 45 years, Occ; Business, R/o.15-2-134, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of petitioner party in person and of Sri M/s. Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Petition is coming for the affirmation and for marking of documents by the petitioner. Matter is kept aside till 4 p.m. The petitioner did not turn up. It seems petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 6th day of June, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Friday, on this the 6th day of June, 2014
R.C.No.98 of 2011
M/s. Satyanarayana Soni Seva Sansthan, A Registered Charitable Trust, having branch Office at Soni Bhavan H.No.15-2-601 to 606 & 612 to 614, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Represented by it’s secretary Mr. Basant Kumar Soni, S/o. Sri Ramesh Chandra Soni, Age 32 years
Occ: Business R/o. 15-2-204, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad 500012.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Smt. Rajshree Soni W/o. Sri Kamal Kishore Soni Aged 42 years, Occ; Business, R/o.15-2-134, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of petitioner party in person and of Sri M/s. Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Petition is coming for the affirmation and for marking of documents by the petitioner. Matter is kept aside till 4 p.m. The petitioner did not turn up. It seems petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 6th day of June, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Friday, on this the 6th day of June, 2014
R.C.No.101 of 2011
M/s. Satyanarayana Soni Seva Sansthan, A Registered Charitable Trust, having branch Office at Soni Bhavan H.No.15-2-601 to 606 & 612 to 614, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Represented by it’s secretary Mr. Basant Kumar Soni, S/o. Sri Ramesh Chandra Soni, Age 32 years Occ: Business R/o. 15-2-204, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad 500012.
.. Petitioner
A n d
M/s. Laxmi Narayan Soni S/o. Sri Late Gokul Das Soni Age 48 years, Occ: Business R/o.15-2-134, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of petitioner party in person and of Sri M/s. Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Petition is coming for the affirmation and for marking of documents by the petitioner. Matter is kept aside till 4 p.m. The petitioner did not turn up. It seems petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 6th day of June, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Friday, on this the 6th day of June, 2014
R.C.No.91 of 2011
M/s. Satyanarayana Soni Seva Sansthan, A Registered Charitable Trust, having branch Office at Soni Bhavan H.No.15-2-601 to 606 & 612 to 614, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Represented by it’s secretary Mr. Basant Kumar Soni, S/o. Sri Ramesh Chandra Soni, Age 32 years Occ: Business R/o. 15-2-204, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad 500012.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Sri Hari Prashadji Malpani S/o. Not known to petitioner Age 68 years, Occ: Business, R/o.4-3-270/3, Giriraj Complex Koti, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of petitioner party in person and of Sri M/s. Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Petition is coming for the affirmation and for marking of documents by the petitioner. Matter is kept aside till 4 p.m. The petitioner did not turn up. It seems petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 6th day of June, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Friday, on this the 6th day of June, 2014
R.C.No.87 of 2011
M/s. Satyanarayana Soni Seva Sansthan, A Registered Charitable Trust, having branch Office at Soni Bhavan H.No.15-2-601 to 606 & 612 to 614, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Represented by it’s secretary Mr. Basant Kumar Soni, S/o. Sri Ramesh Chandra Soni, Age 32 years Occ: Business R/o. 15-2-204, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad 500012.
.. Petitioner
A n d
M/s. United Wire Product represented by Proprietor Mr. Raj Kumar Jain S/o. Not known to the petitioner Age Major, Occ; Business, R/o. Shop No.15, 15-2-614, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of petitioner party in person and of Sri M/s. Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Petition is coming for the affirmation and for marking of documents by the petitioner. Matter is kept aside till 4 p.m. The petitioner did not turn up. It seems petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 6th day of June, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Friday, on this the 6th day of June, 2014
R.C.No.94 of 2011
M/s. Satyanarayana Soni Seva Sansthan, A Registered Charitable Trust, having branch Office at Soni Bhavan H.No.15-2-601 to 606 & 612 to 614, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Represented by it’s secretary Mr. Basant Kumar Soni, S/o. Sri Ramesh Chandra Soni, Age 32 years Occ: Business R/o. 15-2-204, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad 500012.
.. Petitioner
A n d
M/s. Yash Marketing represented by Smt. Bharthi Soni S/o. Sri Jugal Kishore Soni, Age375 years, Occ; Business, R/o.15-2-134, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of petitioner party in person and of Sri M/s. Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Petition is coming for the affirmation and for marking of documents by the petitioner. Matter is kept aside till 4 p.m. The petitioner did not turn up. It seems petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 6th day of June, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Tuesday, on this the 28th day of October, 2014
R.C.No.117 of 2013
Between:- Mohammed Abdul Asif Khateeb S/o. Mohammed Abdul Sajid Khateeb Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student R/o.H.No.11-3-853, Opposite Ibrahim Masjid, Mallepally Hyderabad, rep. by his GPA holder cum Natural mother, MRS Parveen Sultana, W/o. Mohammed Abdul Sajid Khateeb, Aged about 41 years, Occ: House wife R/o.H.NO.11-3-853, Opposite Ibrahim Masjid, Mallepaly, Hyderabad..
.. Petitioner
A n d
Mohd Haneef S/o. Mohd Ibrhim Aged about 45 years, Occ: business R/o.H.No.10-2-317/29/B, Laximi Nagar, Mallepally, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri M. Gangadhar Patil, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Mohd Abdul Sattar Khan, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The case is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 4.10 p.m.
The Petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 28th day of October, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Friday, on this the 24th day of October, 2014
R.C.No.376 of 2012
D. Narsimha S/o. D. Late D. Babaiah
Aged about 66 years, Occ: Retired Service R/o.H.No.17-2-797, Madannapet, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. D. Yadaiah S/o. D. Pochaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Mastri, R/o.H.No.17-2-797, Madannapet, Hyderabad.
2. D. Laxmamma W/o. Late D. Yadaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.17-2-797, Madannapet, Hyderabad. (Respondent No.2 impleaded as per orders in I.A.511 of 2013, dt.23.1.2014)
.. Respondents
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri C.S. Chakravarthy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Y. Srinivasa Chary, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The matter is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 12.40 p.m.
Petitioner called absent. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 24th day of October, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Thursday, on this the 28th day of August, 2014
E.A.No.33 of 2014
IN
E.P.No.13 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.366 of 2008
Between: Anjuman-e-Moinul Akhwan Asafia Kingdom rep. by its Secretary Mir Sabir Ali S/o. Mir Ahmed Ali, Age 60 years, Occ: Secretary Anjuman-e-Moinul Akhwan R/o.22-8-361 Alawa Sartooq Darulshifa, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Decreeholder/petitioner
A n d
1. Kaneeza Abida Begum W/o. Late Siddiq Hussain Aged bout 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o.22-8-361, Alawa-e-Sartooq Mubarak Darulshifa, Hyderabad.
2. Mirza Sadiq Hussain Bakhtiyar S/o. Zainul Abedin @ Omer Bhai, aged Major, Occ: Business R/o. 22-7-430, Inside Devodo Baquar Nawaz Jung, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad.
… Respondents/Judgment debtors/Respondents
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri M. Mehdi Hussain, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Moinuddin Hussain, Advocate for respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Heard. Perused the bailiff report dt.21.8.2014. The bailiff has mentioned in the report that the judgment debtor had picked up quarrel with him and decreeholder and locked the premises and due to that he returned unexecuted warrant.
The report reveals that there was resistance caused by judgment debtor while executing warrant.
Considering the reasons mentioned in the petition and under circumstances it is proper to order break opening of lock and petition is allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 28th day of August, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Thursday, on this the 28th day of August, 2014
E.A.No.34 of 2014
IN
E.P.No.13 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.366 of 2008
Between: Anjuman-e-Moinul Akhwan Asafia Kingdom rep. by its Secretary Mir Sabir Ali S/o. Mir Ahmed Ali, Age 60 years, Occ: Secretary Anjuman-e-Moinul Akhwan R/o.22-8-361 Alawa Sartooq Darulshifa, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Decreeholder/petitioner
A n d
1. Kaneeza Abida Begu W/o. Late Siddiq Hussain Aged bout 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o.22-8-361, Alawa-e-Sartooq Mubarak Darulshifa, Hyderabad.
2. Mirza Sadiq Hussain Bakhtiyar S/o. Zainul Abedin @ Omer Bhai, aged Major, Occ: Business R/o. 22-7-430, Inside Devodo Baquar Nawaz Jung, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad.
… Respondents/Judgment debtors/Respondents
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri M. Mehdi Hussain, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Moinuddin Hussain, Advocate for respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Heard. Perused the bailiff report dt.21.8.2014. The bailiff has mentioned in the report that the judgment debtor had picked up quarrel with him and decreeholder and locked the premises and due to that he returned unexecuted warrant.
The report reveals that there was resistance caused by judgment debtor while executing warrant.
Considering the reasons mentioned in the petition and under circumstances it is proper to provide police protection. Hence petition is allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 28th day of August, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD. Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2013
R.C.No.89 of 2011
Between: M/s. Satyanarayana Soni Seva Sansthan, A Registered Charitable Trust, having branch Office at Soni Bhavan H.No.15-2-601 to 606 & 612 to 614, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Represented by it’s secretary Mr. Basant Kumar Soni, S/o. Sri Ramesh Chandra Soni, Age 32 years Occ: Business R/o. 15-2-204, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad 500012.
.. Petitioner
A n d
M/s. Pavan Plstic, represented by proprietor Age 55 years, Occ; Busines, R/o.15-2-601 to 606 & 612 to 614 Maharajgunj, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF AP BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT & EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of petitioner party in person and of Sri K. Durga Prasad, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
PW.1 absent. No representation. In spite of condition on payment of costs there for. It seems to be the petitioner is not interested in contesting the case. Therefore case is dismissed. .
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 170th day of December, 2013.
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Friday, on this the 13th day of June, 2014
R.C.No.96 of 2011
M/s. Satyanarayana Soni Seva Sansthan, A Registered Charitable Trust, having branch Office at Soni Bhavan H.No.15-2-601 to 606 & 612 to 614, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Represented by it’s secretary Mr. Basant Kumar Soni, S/o. Sri Ramesh Chandra Soni, Age 32 years Occ: Business R/o. 15-2-204, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad 500012.
.. Petitioner
A n d
M/. K. B. Enterprise represented by Mr Properties Age Major Occ: Business R/o. Soni Bhavan 15-2-612 Maharaj Gunj Hyderabad 500 012
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Petitioner party in person and of Sri K. Durga Prasad, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The matter is coming for the evidence of petitioner. The matter is kept aside till 4.30 p.m.
petitioner did not turn up.It seems petitioner has no interest in the petition. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 13th day of June, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Thursday, on this the 9th day of October, 2014
R.C.No.351 of 2013
Between:-
Rajender Pershad S/o. Sri Chandmal Aged about 59 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.15-8-330, Feel Khana, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner
A n d
Vishal Kumar S/o. Late Vijay Kumar Aged 28 years, Occ: Business R/o. Plot No.274, Kamalapuri colony Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri M/s Sharad Sanghi & Associates, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri P.K. Kediao, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. The matter is coming for the evidence of petitioner and kept aside till 3.00 p.m. No representation. It seems petitioner has no interest in the case. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 9th day of October, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Thursday, on this the 9th day of October, 2014
R.C.No.344 of 2013
1. Mirchumal Borwani, S/o. Borwani, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business,
2. Smt. Vidya Borwanhi, W/o. Mirchumal Borwani, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Nil Both are R/o.Flat NO.303-A, Matrusri Apartments, Hyderguda, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
V. Aditya Ram S/o. Not known to petitioners, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.3-5-1093/2, Venkateswara Colony, Narayanguda, Hyderabad-29.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri Vijay Maski, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri K. Kondal Rao, Advocate for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioners called absent. No representation. Matter is coming for the evidence of petitioners and kept aside till 11.50 a.m. petitioners did not turn up.
It seems petitioners have no interest in the petition. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 9th day of October, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Friday, on this the 26th day of September, 2014
R.C.No.34 of 1989
Between:
1. Mahaveer Pershad S/o. Suraj Bhan, Aged about 55 years,
2. Ramesh Peshad S/o. Ganesh Pershad, Aged about 40 years,
3. Om Prakash S/o. Ganesh Pershad, Aged about 38 years,
4. Satish Kumar S/o. Ganesh Pershad, Aged about 35 years,
5. Mahender Kumar S/o. Jagdish Peshad, Aged about 20 years,
6. Pavan Kumar S/o. Jagdish Pershad, Aged about 19 years, All are Occ: Business and R/o. H.No.21-7-134, Charkaman, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
Osman Khan S/o. Hyder Khan, aged about 35 years, Occ: Carrying on business in mulgi bearing No.22-5-119/10, Situated at Suraj Market, Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad. . Respondent
Petition filed under section 10(2)(i) of A.P. Buildings(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1960.
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri Gopal Rao, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate
for the respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till
this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
The Hon’ble High Court of A.P., vide CRP No.5499/2000, dt.23.11.2010 passed orders that Mr.M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause in this Civil Revision
Petition does not survive for adjudication and the matter has become infructuous and recording the said submission, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 26th day of September, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller cum XIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.
Thursday, on this the 16th day of October, 2014
O.S.No.2027 of 2010
Between: Mrs. Parveen Sultana W/o. Shaik Anwar Bin Mohammed
Age: about 37 years, Occ: Household R/o. H.No.19-2-11/35 & H.No.19-2-11/35/1/1 Back side Qutub Shahi Masjid Dargha Do Pahad Shah Wali Misriguri, Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiff
A n d
1. Mohd Muneeruddin S/o. Late Mohd Ghulm Mohiuddin Age: about 60years, Occ: Pensioner R/o. H.No.9-4-29/69, Hakeempet, Tolichowki, Hyderabad
2. Abdul Malik S/o. Abdul Asad, Age: about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.6-10-124, Shivrampally, Rajendernagar, Ranga Reddy District. …Defendants.
This suit is coming before me in the presence of Sri Md. Faseehuddin, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Ali Farooq, Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
O R D E R
Though conditional order passed and sufficient time is granted the plaintiff did not turn up to adduce evidence. The matter is kept aside till 3.35 p.m.
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. It seems plaintiff has no interest in the suit. Hence suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of October, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER; CUM
XIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil- I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER; CUM
XIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller cum XIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.
Thursday, on this the 16th day of October, 2014
O.S.No.2027 of 2010
Between: Mrs. Parveen Sultana W/o. Shaik Anwar Bin Mohammed Age: about 37 years, Occ: Household R/o. H.No.19-2-11/35 & H.No.19-2-11/35/1/1 Back side Qutub Shahi Masjid Dargha Do Pahad Shah Wali Misriguri, Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiff
A n d
1. Mohd Muneeruddin S/o. Late Mohd Ghulm Mohiuddin Age: about 60years, Occ: Pensioner R/o. H.No.9-4-29/69, Hakeempet, Tolichowki, Hyderabad
2. Abdul Malik S/o. Abdul Asad, Age: about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.6-10-124, Shivrampally, Rajendernagar, Ranga Reddy District. …Defendants.
This suit is coming before me in the presence of Sri Md. Faseehuddin, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Ali Farooq, Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
O R D E R
Though conditional order passed and sufficient time is granted the plaintiff did not turn up to adduce evidence. The matter is kept aside till 3.35 p.m.
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. It seems plaintiff has no interest in the suit. Hence suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of October, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER; CUM
XIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil- I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER; CUM
XIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller cum XIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.
Thursday, on this the 16th day of October, 2014
O.S.No.2028 of 2010
Between: Mrs. Saleha Begum W/o. Mohd Ameeruddin Age: about 30 years, Occ: Household R/o. H.No.19-2-11/35/1/A Back side Qutub Shahi Masjid Dargha Do Pahad Shah Wali Misriguri, Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiff
A n d
1. Mohd Muneeruddin S/o. Late Mohd Ghulm Mohiuddin Age: about 60years, Occ: Pensioner R/o. H.No.9-4-29/69, Hakeempet, Tolichowki, Hyderabad
2. Abdul Malik S/o. Abdul Asad, Age: about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.6-10-124, Shivrampally, Rajendernagar, Ranga Reddy District. …Defendants.
This suit is coming before me in the presence of Sri Md. Faseehuddin, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Ali Farooq, Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
O R D E R
Though conditional order passed and sufficient time is granted the plaintiff did not turn up to adduce evidence. The matter is kept aside till 3.35 p.m.
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. It seems plaintiff has no interest in the suit. Hence suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 16th day of October, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER; CUM
XIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil- I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER; CUM
XIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller cum XIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.
Wednesday, on this the 25th day of June, 2014
O.S.No.550 of 2010
Between: J. Prakash S/o. Late J. Laxmaiah Aged about 55 years, Occ: Labour R/o.18-3-554/3/B/A, Ganesh Nagar Mekala Banka, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiff
A n d
J. Narsimha S/o. Late J. Laxmaiah Aged 50 years, Occ: Labour R/o. 18-5-741, Mekalabanda, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad. …Defendant.
This suit is coming before me in the presence of Sri V. Rama Krishna Raju, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri N. Bojjaiah, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
O R D E R
Plaintiff called absent. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed memo stating that he has no instructions from the plaintiff. Though sufficient time is granted plaintiff did not turn up to adduce evidence. It seems plaintiff has no interest in the matter. Hence suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 25th day of June, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER; CUM
XIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil- I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER; CUM
XIII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Thursday, on this the 28th day of August, 2014
E.P.No.10 of 2013
IN
R.C.No.175 of 2007
Between:
1. Gowri Shankar Sanghi S/o. S.S. Sanghi, Age: 62 years, Occ; Advocate
2. Shakuntala Sanghi W/o. G.S.Sanghi, Age: 60 years, occ: Household
3. Guru Pershad Sanghi S/o. G.S. Sanghi, Age: 39 years, Occ: Business All are R/o. H.No.21-2-444, Mitti-ka-sher, Hyderabad.
.. Decree holders/Petitioners A n d
1. Smt. Madhubai W/o. Late Bhagwandas, Age: 62 years, Occ; Household
2. Ravi S/o. Late Bhagwandas, Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, Both are R/o. Jhullela Apartments, Second floor, Kingkoti, Hyderabad.
…Judgment debtors/ Respondents .
This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Prashanth Kumar, Advocate for decreeholders and of Sri Sunil Kamthankar, Advocate for Judgment Debtors and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
O R D E R
Heard. The learned counsel for petitioners/Decreeholders filed memo stating that E.P. has been filed by all the petitioners, as the same is a joint family property and the petitioner No.3 took delivery of the schedule property on behalf of decreeholers, as mentioned in the E.P., and the
Judgment debtor No.2, who delivered the physical possession of the schedule premises also on behalf of Judgment debtors, comprising of two rooms and open land in front of the tin shed premises to petitioner No.3, who also took delivery on behalf of petitioners as per panchanama.
Considering the reasons mentioned in the memo and the bailiff delivery report and delivery receipt of decree holder No.3 and specific mentioning of learned counsel for all the decree holders that taken delivery of property by decree holder No.3 on behalf of all the decreeholders, this
E.P., is terminated.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 28th day of August, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Monday, on this the 25th day of August, 2014
R.C.No.149 of 2014
Between: Seth Gopaldas Bhagwandas Shah S/o. Late Bhagwandas Shah Aged about 55 years, Occ; Business R/o.107, Hill Ridge Vilas, ISB Road Gachibowli, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Landlord
A n d
Sri Pankaj Agarwal S/o. Not known to petitioner Aged Major, Occ: Business, At room NO.12 in P.No.4-3-325, Bank Street, Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad. . Respondent /Tenant.
Petition filed under section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(iii) and 10(2)(v) of A.P. Buildings(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1960.
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri S. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Process not paid. Petitioner called absent. No representation.
Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 25th day of August, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Monday, on this the 25th day of August, 2014
R.C.No.149 of 2014
Between: Seth Gopaldas Bhagwandas Shah S/o. Late Bhagwandas Shah Aged about 55 years, Occ; Business R/o.107, Hill Ridge Vilas, ISB Road Gachibowli, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Landlord
A n d
Sri Pankaj Agarwal S/o. Not known to petitioner Aged Major, Occ: Business, At room NO.12 in P.No.4-3-325, Bank Street, Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad. . Respondent /Tenant.
Petition filed under section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(iii) and 10(2)(v) of A.P. Buildings(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1960.
This petition is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri S. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Process not paid. Petitioner called absent. No representation.
Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 25th day of August, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Monday, on this the 15th day of September, 2014
E.A.No.13 of 2013
IN
E.P.No.4 of 2013
IN
R.C.No.355 of 2012
Between: Syed Burhanuddin S/o. Late Syed Moinuddin, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.9-4-131/9, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/Petitioner/III Party
A n d
1. Afzal Ahmed S/o. Late Shaik Ahmed, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.9-4-77/A/40, Al Hasnath Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. … Respondent No.1/Landlord
2. Syed Mujeebuddin S/o. Late Syed Moinuddin, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Private Service R/o.H.No.9-4-131/9, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad. . Respondent No.2/Alleged tenant.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Md. Muneeruddin, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Purushotamlal Advocate for respondent No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Petitioner called absent. No representation. The matter is kept aside till 1.40 p.m. Neither petitioner nor learned counsel for petitioner turned up for hearing the matter for enquiry. It seems that petitioner has no interest in the matter. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 15th day of September, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Wednesday, on this the 11th day of June, 2014
I.A.No.150 of 2014
IN
I.A.No.261 of 2012
IN
R.C.No.190 of 2008
Between:
Shaik Mansoor S/o. Late Shaik Maqdoom Ali
Age: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.6-3-666/13, Jafar Ali Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner/respondent/respondent
A n d
Sofia Hasan D/o. Late Hasan Sayeed Siddiqui Age: 42 years, occ: Household, R/o.5-6-94, New Aghapura, Hyderabad Rep. by her so called G.P.A. Zulfequar Alam S/o. Late Akber Alam Age: 38 years, Occ: business, R/o.
. Respondent/petitioner/petitioner.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri Haroon Osman Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
1.Notice given to the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has reported no counter.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The petitioner who is the respondent in the main RC has filed petition stating that I.A.261 of 2012 was filed by the respondent herein to appoint an advocate commission with an intention to gather the evidence and whereas he immediately filed his counter and this court heard the arguments on both sides on 9.5.2014 ad posted the matter for further arguments and for filing judgments by them and on 5.6.2014 his counsel was out of station having gone to attend a case in Bangalore and the junior counsel was unaware about the proceedings and as such he did not request time for filing the judgments in the above case and the court posted the above case for orders and non filing of the judgments and advancing further arguments in the above case on 5.6.2014 was neither intentional nor wanton but due to the above stated reason and no prejudice will be caused to the other side if the above I.A.261 of 2012 is reopened for filing judgments and to advance further arguments.
4.In view of the reasons mentioned in the petition and as the learned counsel
for the respondent has reported no counter and has not opposed the petition, I
am inclined to allow this petition in the interest of justice.
5.In the result, the petition is allowed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of June, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Thursday, the 23rd day of January, 2014
I.A.No.453 of 2013
IN
R.C.No.305 of 2012
Between:
1. Bhagwandas S/o. Late Nanuram, Hindu, Age: bout 58 years, Occ: Business, 5-8-582, Abid Road, Hyderabad.
2. Hanumanth Kumar S/o. Nanuram, Hindu, Age: about 64 years, Occ: Business, 5-8-582, Abid Road, Hyderabad.
3. Brij Mohan S/o. Late Nanuram, Hindu, Age: about 68 years, Occ: Business, 5-8-582, Abid Road, Hyderabad.
4. Jagmohan S/o. Late Nanuram, Hindu, Age: about 65 years, Occ: Business, 5-8-582, Abid Road, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners/Petitioners
A n d
Shri M. Prahlad Roy S/o. M. Poonam Chand, Hindu, Age: about 63 years, Occ: Business in shop No.22-5-76, Balaji Market, Charkaman, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri B. Shankar, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Heard. Perused the petition besides counter. In the interest of justice, petition allowed subject to proof of relevancy.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 23rd day of January, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Thursday, the 23rd day of January, 2014
I.A.No.452 of 2013
IN
R.C.No.305 of 2012
Between:
1. Bhagwandas S/o. Late Nanuram, Hindu, Age: bout 58 years, Occ: Business, 5-8-582, Abid Road, Hyderabad.
2. Hanumanth Kumar S/o. Nanuram, Hindu, Age: about 64 years, Occ: Business, 5-8-582, Abid Road, Hyderabad.
3. Brij Mohan S/o. Late Nanuram, Hindu, Age: about 68 years, Occ: Business, 5-8-582, Abid Road, Hyderabad.
4. Jagmohan S/o. Late Nanuram, Hindu, Age: about 65 years, Occ: Business, 5-8-582, Abid Road, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners/Petitioners
A n d
Shri M. Prahlad Roy S/o. M. Poonam Chand, Hindu, Age: about 63 years, Occ: Business in shop No.22-5-76, Balaji Market, Charkaman, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/Respondent
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.A. Krishna, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri B. Shankar, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Heard. Perused the petition and counter. In the interest of justice, petition allowed with the costs of Rs.100/- on or before 28-1-2014.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 23rd day of January, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Thursday, the 6th day of March, 2014
E.A.No.3 of 2014
IN
E.P.No. 2 of 2012
IN
O.S.No.1292 of 2000
Between:
1. Mr. K. Narasimha Rao S/o. K. Srinivas Rao, Age: about 42 years, Occ; Govt. Service R/o. 14-56, Venkata Sai Nilayam, P & T colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.
2. Mrs. K. Vara Lakshmi W/o. Sri S.R. Niranjan Kumar Desai Age: about 42 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o.1-385/2 New RBI colony, Near Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners/JDRs No.4 & 6
A n d
1. Ms/ Vishnu Chits Pvt. Ltd., Rtd. Office at 1 to 4 Upper Ground Floor Liberty Plaza, Domalguda, Hyderabad rep.by its MD Sri L. Veresh …. Respondent/DHR
2. Mrs. V. Venkata Lakshmi W/o. Srinivas Rao, Age: about 73 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o.14-56, Venkata Sai Nilyam, P & T colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.
3. Mr.P. Srinivas Rao S/o. Sri P. Kotaiah, Age: Major, Occ: Govt. Service R/o.2nd floor, Prudhvi Sai Apartments, Chaitanyapuri, R.R. District.
4. Mr. K. Janaki Rama Rao S/o. K. Maheesur Rao, Age: about 65 years, R/o.2-74/2, Tirumala Nagar, Near APHB colony, Meerpet, Moula-Ali, Hyderabad.
5. Mrs.D. Gayatri Devi W/o. Sri Subrabanyam, Age: Major, R/o.LIG-75, APHB colony, meerpet, Moula-Ali, Hyderabad.
6. Mr.R.N.K. Srinivas Desai, S/o. Srinivas Rao, Age: about 57 years, R/o.1-385/2, New RBI colony, Near Mhan Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad.
…. Respondents 1,2,3,5 & 7
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.A. Padmanabha Rao, Advocate for petitioners/JDRS and of Sri G. Dhananjai, Advocate for respondent/DHR and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
Notice given. No objection, No counter by Decree Holder.
Heard Both sides. For orders call on 24.3.2014
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 6th day of March, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2014
E.A.No.3 of 2014
IN
E.P.No.2 of 2012
IN
O.S.No.1292 of 2000
Between:
1. M. K. Narasimha Rao S/o. K. Srinivas Rao, Age: about 42 years, Occ: Govt. Service, R/o.14-56, Venkata Sai Nilayam, P & T Colony Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.
2. Mrs. K. Vara Laxmi W/o. Sri S.R. Niranjan Kumar Desai Age: about 42 years, Occ: Govt Teacher, R/o.1-385/2, New RBI colony, Near Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad-500 035
.. Petitioners/JRS
A n d
1. M/s Vishnu Chits Pvt. Ltd., Red of at 1 to 4 Upper Ground floor, Liberty Plaza, Domalguda, Hyderabad Rep by its MD Sri L. Veeresh
.. Respondent/DHR
2. Mrs. V. VEnkata Lakshmi W/o. Srinivas rAo, Age: about 72 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o.14-56, VEnkata Sai Nilayam, P & T Colony Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.
3. Mr.P. Srinivas Rao S/o. P. Kotaiah, Age: Major, Occ: Govt. Service, R/o.2nd floor, Prudvi Sai Apartments, Chaitenyapuri, RR District.
4. Mr.K.Janaki Rama Rao S/o. Sri K. Maheesur Rao, Age: about 65 years, R/o.2-74/2, Tirumala Nagar, Near APHB colony, Meerpet, Moula-Ali, Hyderabad.
5. Mrs.D.Gayatri Devi W/o. Sri Subraba;nyam, Age: Major, R/o. LIG-75, APHB colony, Meerpet, Moula-Ali, Hyderabad.
6. Mr.R.N.K. Srinivas Desai S/o. Srinivas Rao, Age: about 57 years, R/o.1-385/2, New RBI colony, Near Mohan Nagar, Kothapet Hyderabad-500 035. … Respondents/Jdrs No.1 to 3, 5 & 7 (The respondents No.2 to 6 are not necessary parties to this petition)
This petition is coming on this day for hearing
before me in the presence of Sri G.A. Padmanabha Rao, Advocate for
petitioners/JDRS and of Sri G. Dhananjai, Advocate for respondent/DHR and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
O R D E R
The Decree Holder has filed memo stating that Judgment
Debtors No. 4 and 6 already deposited a substantial amount earlier in the present EP and prays the court to issue order not to recover further amounts from the salary of Judgment Debtors No.4 and 6. The memo is recorded. Issue direction garnishee of Judgment Debtors No.4 and 6 to stop the further deductions in EP.2 of 2012 from the salaries of Judgment
Debtors No.4 and 6.
Accordingly the petition is closed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 22nd day of April, 2014
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence -Nil-
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
IN
THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER: HYDERABAD. Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2013
R.C.No.47 of 2010
Between: Kamlesh Kumar Kedia S/o. Shri Hanumanmal Agarwal Aged about 47 years, Occ: Prop. of M/s Sai Enterprises At shop NO.4, H.No.15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad, A.P.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Sri Satyanarayana Soni S/o. Late Sri Surajkaran Soni Age about 85 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.15-2-148, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
2. M/s Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its office at 15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Rep. by its Authorized person
3. M/s. Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its Regd. Office at 118, Vardhaman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharastra Rep. by its managing trustee.
4. Purushotham Das Soni S/o. Late Suraj Karan Soni Aged about 80 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-7-290, Esmia Bazar, Hyderabad, A.P., (Respondent No.4 is added vide orders in I.A.268 of 2010, Dt.11-8-2010)
.. Respondents
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9(3) OF AP BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT & EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 FOR DEPOSIT OF MONTHLY RENT.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Bheeshma Chary, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 3 and of Sri Kishore Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
RW.1 present. Cross examined. Ex.R.8 to R10 marked. For cross of RW.1 by petitioner call on 24.1.2014.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 20th day of December, 2013.
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24h day of January, 2014
R.C.No.47 of 2010
Between: Kamlesh Kumar Kedia S/o. Shri Hanumanmal Agarwal Aged about 47 years, Occ: Prop. of M/s Sai Enterprises At shop NO.4, H.No.15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad, A.P.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Sri Satyanarayana Soni S/o. Late Sri Surajkaran Soni Age about 85 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.15-2-148, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
2. M/s Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its office at 15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Rep. by its Authorized person
3. M/s. Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its Regd. Office at 118, Vardhaman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharastra Rep. by its managing trustee.
4. Purushotham Das Soni S/o. Late Suraj Karan Soni Aged about 80 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-7-290, Esmia Bazar, Hyderabad, A.P., (Respondent No.4 is added vide orders in I.A.268 of 2010, Dt.11-8-2010)
.. Respondents
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9(3) OF AP BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT & EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 FOR DEPOSIT OF MONTHLY RENT.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Bheeshma Chary, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 3 and of Sri Kishore Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
I.A. filed and pending. Call on 4.2.2014.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 24th day of January, 2014.
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2013
R.C.No.46 of 2010
Between: Seetaram Agarwal S/o. Sri Hanumanmal Agarwal Aged about 65 years, Occ; Proprietor of M/s Dhanwantari Enterprises at shop No.5 H.No.15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Sri Satyanarayana Soni S/o. Late Sri Surajkaran Soni Age about 85 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.15-2-148, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
2. M/s Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its office at 15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Rep. by its Authorized person
3. M/s. Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its Regd. Office at 118, Vardhaman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharastra Rep. by its managing trustee.
4. Purushotham Das Soni S/o. Late Suraj Karan Soni Aged about 80 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.H.No.4-7-290, Esmia Bazar, Hyderabad, A.P., (Respondent No.4 is added vide orders in I.A.267 of 2010, Dt.11-8-2010)
.. Respondents
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9(3) OF AP BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT & EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 FOR DEPOSIT OF MONTHLY RENT. This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Bheeshma Chary, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 3 and of Sri Kishore Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
RW.1 present. Cross examined. Ex.R.8 to R10 marked. For cross of RW.1 by petitioner call on 24.1.2014.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 20th day of December, 2013
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY// .
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24h day of January, 2014
R.C.No.46 of 2010
Between: Seetaram Agarwal S/o. Sri Hanumanmal Agarwal Aged about 65 years, Occ; Proprietor of M/s Dhanwantari Enterprises at shop No.5 H.No.15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Sri Satyanarayana Soni S/o. Late Sri Surajkaran Soni Age about 85 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.15-2-148, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
2. M/s Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its office at 15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Rep. by its Authorized person
3. M/s. Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its Regd. Office at 118,
Vardhaman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharastra Rep. by its managing trustee.
4. Purushotham Das Soni S/o. Late Suraj Karan Soni Aged about 80 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-7-290, Esmia Bazar, Hyderabad, A.P., (Respondent No.4 is added vide orders in I.A.267 of 2010, Dt.11-8-2010)
.. Respondents
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9(3) OF AP BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT & EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 FOR DEPOSIT OF MONTHLY RENT.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Bheeshma Chary, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 3 and of Sri Kishore Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
I.A. filed. Call on 4.2.2014.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 24th day of January, 2014.
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY// .
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2013
R.C.No.45 of 2010
Between: Seetaram Agarwal S/o. Sri Hanumanmal Agarwal Aged about 65 years, Occ; Proprietor of M/s Bhagawan Corporation at shop No.6 H.No.15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Sri Satyanarayana Soni S/o. Late Sri Surajkaran Soni Age about 85 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.15-2-148, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
2. M/s Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its office at 15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Rep. by its Authorized person
3. M/s. Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its Regd. Office at 118, Vardhaman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharastra Rep. by its managing trustee.
4. Purushotham Das Soni S/o. Late Suraj Karan Soni Aged about 80 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-7-290, Esmia Bazar, Hyderabad, A.P., (Respondent No.4 is added vide orders in I.A.266 of 2010, Dt.11-8-2010)
.. Respondents
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9(3) OF AP BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT & EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 FOR DEPOSIT OF MONTHLY RENT.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Bheeshma Chary, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 3 and of Sri Kishore Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
RW.1 present. Cross examined. Ex.R.8 to R10 marked. For cross of RW.1 by petitioner call on 24.1.2014.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 20th day of December, 2013
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Smt.K.Jaya Lakshmi, I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24h day of January, 2014
R.C.No.45 of 2010
Between: Seetaram Agarwal S/o. Sri Hanumanmal Agarwal Aged about 65 years, Occ; Proprietor of M/s. Dhanwantri Enterprises at shop No.6 H.No.15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Sri Satyanarayana Soni S/o. Late Sri Surajkaran Soni Age about 85 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.15-2-148, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
2. M/s Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its office at 15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad, A.P., Rep. by its Authorized person
3. M/s. Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan having its Regd. Office at 118, Vardhaman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharastra Rep. by its managing trustee.
4. Purushotham Das Soni S/o. Late Suraj Karan Soni Aged about 80 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.4-7-290, Esmia Bazar, Hyderabad, A.P., (Respondent No.4 is added vide orders in I.A.266 of 2010, Dt.11-8-2010)
.. Respondents
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9(3) OF AP BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT & EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 FOR DEPOSIT OF MONTHLY RENT.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri M. Bheeshma Chary, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 3 and of Sri Kishore Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
I.As filed. Call on 4.2.2014.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 24th day of January, 2014.
SD/-
SMT. K. JAYA LAKSHMI
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi I Addl.Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 24h day of July, 2014
I.A.No.17 of 2014
IN
R.C.No.45 of 2010
Between: M/s Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sansthan Having office H.No.15-2-612, Soni Bhavan Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad A.P., rep. by its Secretary Basant Kumar Soni
.. Petitioner/respondent No.2
A n d
1. Shri Seethram Agarwal S/o. Shri Hanumanmal Agarwal Aged about 65 years, Occ: Prop. of M/s Bhagwan Corporation At shop NO.5, H.No.15-2-612, Soni Bhavan, Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad, A.P. … Respondent/Petitioner
2. Shri Satyanarayan Soni S/o. Late Shri Surajkaran Soni Aged 85 years Occ: Business, R/o.H.NO.15-2-148 Maharaj Gunj, Hyderabad, A.P.,
3. Shri Satyanarayan Soni Seva Sasthan, having office H.No.118, Vardhaman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra Rep by its Managing Trustees.
4. Shri Purshottamdas Soni S/o. Shri Late Sri Surjakaran Soni Aged about 82 years, Occ: business, R/o. H.No.4-7-290 Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad.
.. Respondents/respondents.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of petitioner(party in person) and of Sri M. Bheeshma Chary, Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3 and of Sri Thakur Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following;
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner has filed memo stating that he is ready to file undertaking that he is ready to pay the costs imposed by the court to respondent No.1 subject to result of the R.A. pending before the Hon’ble
Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court for consideration on legality of order imposing costs and permit him to proceed with cross examination of RW.1 and petitioner filed I.A.54/10 for interim relief and permission to deposit the arrears of rent due and payable pending disposal of the main application and the respondent No.2 has reported no objection for allowing above said application and court has not recorded no any order passed on merits and same is pending since a long time.
As perused on record. CA filed on 23.7.2014 and copy ready on 3.7.2014. Even though the period of time is deducted the petitioner has to represent the matter on the next date of adjournment. In I.A.54/10 the respondent No.4 has filed counter and it is coming for hearing and the respondent No.2 who is petitioner herein has not reported any objection and I.A.54/10 is still pending for hearing of both parties. Unless stay is pending this court has not precluded to stop the proceedings in the I.A. by mere representation of filing revision petition.
The petitioner has endorsed on memo that counsels for respondent
No.2, respondent No.3 refused to take notice and were not seen in the court premises and hence notice can’t be served. For notice to respondent
No.2, respondent No.3 call on 12.8.2014.
Written and pronounced by me in open court this the 24th day of July, 2014.
I ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER;
HYDERABAD.
During the course of cross examination of PW.1, the learned counsel for the respondent has raised objection stating that the PW1 is not competent witness to depose on behalf of the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that PW.1 is no other than the husband of the petitioner and he can be examined on behalf of the petitioner and he is a competent witness.
The petitioner has filed the petition against the respondent for eviction. The husband of the petitioner has filed his chief examination affidavit as PW.1. There is no dispute by the respondent with regard to relationship of the petitioner with PW.1 as wife and husband.
Section 120 of Indian Evidence Act reveals that in all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband and wife or any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses.
In Jupudi Sriranganayakulu Vs. Bonagiri Subbalakshmi reported in 1997(4) ALT 740, the Hon’ble court held that the non examination of the landlady in the facts and circumstances of the case is not at all fatal and even though the petition for eviction is filed by the landlady on the ground of bonafide requirement, the premises is, in fact, required bonafide by her husband and the fact as to the requirement of the premises is very well known to the husband of the landlady also and he is neither a stranger nor a mere attorney on behalf of the landlady and therefore it cannot be said that PW.1 husband is not competent to speak to the fact in issue and it cannot be said that the landlady alone is the right person to speak about the requirement and law of evidence requires proof of a fact which is pleaded by a party by way of adducing cogent and reliable evidence and the fact so pleaded must not necessarily be proved it through any of the modes that is required under the law of evidence and the state of mind of the landlady in this case is the requirement of the premises for use by her husband and the said fact is proved by her by examining her husband and when the fact pleaded is proved, it is not necessary for the Court to probe into the competency or otherwise of the witness who is examined to prove the said fact and if all the requirements of sec.10(3) of the Act are fulfilled, that will be enough to grant the relief that is sought for by the landlady and therefore the non examination of the landlady is not fatal.
For the foregoing reasons, it is obvious that PW.1 is competent witness to depose on behalf of the petitioner herein.
Accordingly the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is overruled. For further cross examination of PW.1, call on
During the course of further chief examination of RW.1, the learned counsel for the respondent wants to mark notarized attested copy of memorandum of oral gift dt.25.1.1958 and the notarized attested copy of Will dt.6.3.1991 as secondary evidence on behalf of the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised objection for marking of the said documents stating that unless the respondents have proved about the existence and non production of the originals of above documents, they cannot mark them as secondary evidence.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision in Suddapally Lakshmi Saroja Vs. Vishnu Botla Murali Krishna and others reported in 2014(3) ALD 427. The facts of that case are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. In that case, the court held that in case there is no dispute as to the existence of the originals the burden of such party substantially reduced, and if, on the other hand, the very document disputed, various steps are required to be taken.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision in Bihari Lal Vs. Ram Piari reported in 2000(2) CCC 278 (P & H). The facts of that case are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. In that case, according to plaintiff, he lost the Will when he was going in a rickshaw.
The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the decision in J.Yashoda Vs. K. Shobha Rani reported in 2007 SC 1721(1) wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that in order to produce secondary evidence it is
necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document.
He also relied on the decision in H.Siddiqui(dead) by L.Rs., Vs. A. Ramalingam reported in AIR 2011 SC 1492, the Hon’ble court held that in a case where original documents are not produce at any time, nor factual foundation has been led for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the Court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence and thus, secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring.
In the present case this court observed in I.A.411 of 2014 that the respondents herein have to produce necessary evidence with regard to secondary evidence at the time of enquiry and the court has to decide the matter at the time of main enquiry and any evidence which the petitioners produced by way of secondary evidence concerning existence, contents of document will be subject to being questioned on all permissible grounds by the petitioners and will be further subject to appreciation of admissibility and acceptability of such evidence sought to be produced as secondary evidence.
In the present RC the respondents contested with regard to the existence of original documents stating that the originals are in the possession of new purchasers and they handed over the attested copies and they filed notarized attested copies of memorandum of gift and Will in the court. The respondents has to take steps with regard to the proof of the existence of originals which are said to have been in the custody of the third parties in order to lea secondary evidence. Unless property steps are taken by the respondents to produce necessary evidence with regard to leading of secondary evidence, the above said documents cannot be marked as secondary evidence. Hence the objection raised by the petitioners is sustained. For further chief examination of RW.1 Call on
The contention of the petitioner is that the deceased tenant has habitual defaulter and committed default in payment of rent and he filed RC 58 of 2010 and I.A.460 of 2010 U/s. 11 of RC Act and he filed I.A.319 of 2011 U/s.11(4) of RC Act and after enquiry the tenant expired and the respondents contested I.A.319 of 2011 and it was allowed and proceedings stopped in RC.58 of 2010 and the respondent preferred rent appeal which was allowed and enquiry in RC..58 of 2010 is to be taken up and after rent appeal was allowed the respondents failed to pay rent from September 2014 till January 2015 and committed default.
The contention of the respondents is that they paid rents from October to December 2014 on 23.1.2015 and rent for the month of January 2015 is paid on 6.2.2015 and the rent for the month of February 2015 is paid on 8.3.2015.
According to Section 101 of Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the person who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it.
The burden of proof lies on the petitioner who asserts the affirmative of the issue.
Hence the petitioner is directed to get ready for evidence and adduce evidence on the next date of adjournment. Call on 29.9.2015.
All the staff members of Principal Rent Control
Court and Additional Rent Control Court of Secunderabad
are hereby directed to attend the destruction work from
…………………………… and to complete the same within
………………….. month without fail.
RC.No.224/2015
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: T. Nagarani,
Principal Rent Controller,
Hyderabad. FAC I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this 17th day of November, 2023.
R.C.No. 224 of 2015
Between: Sudheer Gupta S/o. Late Lalitha Pershad Gupta, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Flat No.G-1, Gokuldham Apartments, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, T.S.
.. Petitioner
A n d
1. Bajranglal (died per Lrs)
2. Keshav Agarwal S/o. Late Bajranglal, Aged Major, Proprietor of Sri Nathulal Jewellers, Tenant of shop No.21-2-192/A, situated at Charkaman, Hyderabad, T.S.
3. Anil Agarwal S/o. Late Bajranglal, Aged Major, Proprietor of Sri Nathulal Jewellers, Tenant of shop No.21-2-192/A, situated at Charkaman, Hyderabad, T.S.
4. Dilip Agarwal S/o. Late Bajranglal, Aged Major, Proprietor of Sri Nathulal Jewellers, Tenant of shop No.21-2-192/A, situated at Charkaman, Hyderabad, T.S.
2
RC.No.224/2015
5. Rekha Agarwal D/o. Late Bajranglal, Aged Major, Proprietor of Sri Nathulal Jewellers, Tenant of shop No.21-2-192/A, situated at Charkaman, Hyderabad, T.S.
.. Respondents
This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Hameed Pasha, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri D.V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 10(2)(i) of
T.S. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act seeking eviction of the respondents in respect of shop No.21-2-192, situated at Vallabh Das
Building, Charkaman, Hyderabad (hereinafter it is referred as petition schedule premises).
2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-
The petitioner is the joint owner and the respondent is the tenant of petition schedule premises. Originally the father of the petitioner namely Lalitha Pershad Gupta was the owner of the petition schedule premises and after his death, the said property devolved upon his legal heirs i.e., his wife Smt. Jeevani Bai, two sons namely Sanjay Gupta and the petitioner herein and one daughter namely Mrs. Sudha Naredi as 3
RC.No.224/2015
absolute joint owners and that all the above said owners have orally authorized the petitioner to get issue legal notice as well as to file the present case on his behalf as well as on their behalf. The petitioner further submitted that during the life time of his father, he filed eviction petition against the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement and on default in payment of rents vide RC.No.487/2007 before this court and the same was dismissed on 24.11.2009. The present monthly rent in respect of petition schedule premises is Rs.950/- exclusive of electricity and property tax and that the respondent sent the rent more than ten months back in the name of father of petitioner by falsely mentioning as representative of Shiv Bhavan Dharamshala Trust and that the said money order returned to sender as Mr. Lalitha Pershad was no more and that there is no such claimed trust under the name and style of Shiv Bhavan
Dharamshala Trust. The petitioner further submitted that the respondent is well aware of the fact that the father of the petitioner died on 13.2.2014 and also aware that there is no Dharamshala or trust in the name and style of Shiv Bhavan Dharamshala Trust and he is also well aware that
Shiv Bhavan was the previous name of the building, but it is not trust and after returning of the said money order, the respondent herein has not 4
RC.No.224/2015
been paying the agreed rents nor has been enhancing the rents wantonly and deliberately.
3.The petitioner further submitted that he intends to start his own business in the petition schedule premises and that he is not in occupation of any commercial property in and over Hyderabad city or at any other place and that the petition schedule premises is situated at
Charminar area being famous for all kinds of business, as such it is very suitable for business. The petitioner further submitted that he got issued a legal notice on 14.10.2014 to the respondent calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent upto October 2014 @ Rs.950/- per month and also to vacate the petition schedule premises and to handover the same to the petitioner on or before 31.10.2014 and it is also mentioned in the said notice that the respondent shall also liable to pay damages and mesne profit to the petitioner. On receipt of the said legal notice, the respondent issued reply dt.10.11.2014 and also another notice dt.30.12.2014 with all false and baseless claims, for which the petitioner issued a rejoinder dt.22.11.2014.
5
RC.No.224/2015
4.The petitioner further submitted that the respondent without any basis or documentary proof falsely claiming that the petition schedule premises is Shiv Bhavan Dharmshala Trust and as there is no trust as claimed by the respondent and that the respondent is strict proof of the same and that in another case, the other tenant also falsely claimed for which the Honourable Hgh Court rejected the claim and contention of the story of trust. The petitioner further submitted that the respondent is in wrongful possession of petition schedule premises since 1.11.2014 onwards after termination of tenancy by issuing a legal notice and that the petitioner required the petition schedule premises for starting his own business in and over the petition schedule premises and the requirement is bonafide. Hence,this petition.
5.The respondent filed counter denying the petition averments by stating that the petitioner along with his family members are not the exclusive owners of the petition schedule premises as late Laitha Peshad
Gupta was not the sole owner of the same and that earlier eviction petition vide RC.No.487/2007 filed by the father of the petitioner against the respondent was dismissed on 24.11.2009 upon the same ground and the 6
RC.No.224/2015
appeal vide R.A.No.48/2010 preferred by the father of the petitioner also dismissed for default by the Honourable Additional Chief Judge, City Small
Causes Court, Hyderabad on 24.6.2010. The respondent further submitted that the contentions of the petitioner are untenable in view of categorical assertion of his father in RC.NO.487/2007 that the petition schedule premises along with other mulgies is joint family property and he was managing the same on behalf of the other joint owners. The respondent further submitted that the father of the petitioner was having 1/6th share in the ownership of the mulgies bearing No.21-2-191, 192, 193 put together along with other joint family members, who are having ownership of the remaining 5/6th share of the above said mulgies including petition schedule premises which is only a part of the mulgi bearing No.
21-2-192 (front portion) and that the father of the petitioner being the elder member of the joint family was managing the petition schedule premises along with other joint family properties which are part and parcel of the schedule shown in the compromise decree dt.5.4.1999 in
O.S.No.239 of 1998 before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad in between the joint family members as stated by the father of the petitioner in RC.No.487/2007.
7
RC.No.224/2015
6.The respondent further submitted that he is the tenant of the petition schedule premises for nearly about 60 years onwards and the tenancy is oral and the rent has been increased from time to time and rent of Rs.950/- per month was being paid regularly and the same were being collected by the father of the petitioner after the above said partition decree among the joint members as stated above and earlier the other joint family members as trustees were collecting the same in the name of joint family trust known as “Mohanlal Family Charitable Trust” also known as Shiv
Bhavan Dharmasala Trust and that the respondent has taken the lease of the premises from the original owners of the joint family members of late
Lalitha Pershad and after purchase, they became the landlords and that the respondent and his family members have been carrying on jewellery business from the date of its lease and that the petitioner never intimated the date of death of his father and that the petitioner or any other joint family member chose to inform either orally or in writing intimating the person authorized/entrusted with the collection of rent and the mode of payment and the respondent informed the same through his reply notice dt.10.11.2014 & 30.12.2014 and on receipt of the same also there was no response from the petitioner and his counsel.
8
RC.No.224/2015
7.The respondent further submitted that the petitioner himself shown his occupation as agriculture in the description of the cause title of the petition and intending to establish any business is hollow and the same ground is taken in all other eviction cases filed and even in the earlier round of litigation against the respondent and others and no default of payment of rents ever took place and the question of arrears of rent does not arise and the rent for the period from April 2014 onwards could not be paid due to the return of money order and prays the court to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
8.During the pendency of petition, the respondent died and the legal heirs of the deceased respondent i.e., respondents No.2 to 5 were brought on record as per the orders passed in I.A.No.145/2018 dt.10.4.2019.
9.After impleadment, the respondents No.2 and 3 filed additional counter by stating that the deceased respondent constituted a partnership firm in the name of M/s Jagan Prasad Bajaranglal & Co. , which was came into force on 1.8.1991 and since then the same is running its business in 9
RC.No.224/2015
the petition schedule premises and earlier to the constitution of the firm, the deceased respondent was running the family business in his name in the petition schedule premises and that the deceased respondent along with his son i.e., respondent NO.3 constituted the said firm and entered into partnership deed dt.25.7.1991 and that the petitioner without making the firm and the No.3 as parties, filed the present petition only against the deceased respondent NO.1. The respondents further submitted that after the death of respondent No.1, the firm is reconstituted by bringing his another son into the firm and at present both the respondents No.2 and 3 are the partners of the firm and the business is carried on by them in the name of the originally constituted firm and running the same business by reconstitution partnership deed dt.28.1.2019.
10.The respondents No.2 and 3 further submitted that the petitioner is neither aware of the factual aspects of the tenancy and the running of the business by the firm and is not competent to file the present petition initially only against late Bajranglal and subsequently inspite of filing the relevant documents pertaining to the said firm and the 10
RC.No.224/2015
partnership deed and the reconstituted firm and its partnership deed and prays the court to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
11. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner himself is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, but the respondents failed to adduce any evidence on their behalf and also failed to cross examine PW.1, as such the respondents’ evidence was closed and orders were pronounced on 2.5.2023 by allowing the petition. Thereafter the respondents herein preferred appeal vide RCA No.16/2023 and the said
RCA No.16/2023 was allowed by setting aside the order dt.2.5.2023 and remanded back the RC.No.224/2015 to the trial court to meet the ends of justice for cross examination of PW.1 by the respondents on 12.10.2023 and permitted to adduce evidence by both parties on their behalf.
12.After remanded back the matter to this court, PW.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the respondents on 12.10.2023 and thereafter the respondent No.3 is examined as RW.1 and got marked
Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.18.
11
RC.No.224/2015
13.Heard both the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent filed written arguments.
14. To consider the rival contentions of both the parties, the following points that arose for consideration are:
1.Whether there is any jural relationship of landlord and tenants between the petitioner and respondents in respect of petition schedule premises and whether the denial of title of the petitioner by the respondents as petitioner is not executive owner in respect of petition schedule premises is bonafide or not?
2.Whether the respondent No.1 has committed willful default in payment of monthly rents in respect of petition schedule premises?
3.Whether the requirement of petition schedule premises by the petitioner is bonafide?
4.To what relief?
P O I N T No.1:-
15.The contention of the petitioner is that originally the father of the petitioner i.e., Lalitha Pershad Gupta was the owner of the petition schedule premises and after his death, the said property devolved upon his legal heirs i.e., his wife Smt. Jeevani Bai, two sons namely Sanjay Gupta and the petitioner herein and one daughter namely Mrs. Sudha Naredi as 12
RC.No.224/2015
absolute joint owners and that all the above said owners have orally authorized the petitioner to get issue legal notice as well as to file the present case on his behalf as well as on their behalf and that the present monthly rent in respect of petition schedule premises is Rs.950/- exclusive of electricity and property tax and that the respondent sent the rent more than ten months back in the name of father of petitioner by falsely mentioning as representative of Shiv Bhavan Dharamshala Trust and that the said money order returned to sender as Mr. Lalitha Pershad was no more and that there is no such claimed trust under the name and style of
Shiv Bhavan Dharamshala Trust. The petitioner further contended that the respondent is well aware of the fact that the father of the petitioner died on 13.2.2014 and also aware that there is no Dharamshala or trust in the name and style of Shiv Bhavan Dharamshala Trust and he is also well aware that Shiv Bhavan was the previous name of the building, but it is not trust and after returning of the said money order, the respondent herein has not been paying the agreed rents nor has been enhancing the rents wantonly and deliberately.
13
RC.No.224/2015
16.On the other hand, the contention of the deceased respondent
No.1 is that that father of the petitioner was having 1/6th share in the ownership of the mulgies bearing No.21-2-191, 192, 193 put together along with other joint family members, who are having ownership of the remaining 5/6th share of the above said mulgies including petition schedule premises which is only a part of the mulgi bearing No. 21-2-192 (front portion) and that the father of the petitioner being the elder member of the joint family was managing the petition schedule premises along with other joint family properties that he is the tenant of the petition schedule premises for nearly about 60 years onwards and the tenancy is oral and the rent has been increased from time to time and rent of Rs.950/- per month was being paid regularly and the same were being collected by the father of the petitioner after the above said partition decree among the joint members as per compromise decree dt.5.4.1999 in O.S.No.239 of 1998 before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in between the joint family members as stated by the father of the petitioner.
The further contention of the deceased respondent is that earlier the other joint family members as trustees were collecting the same in the name of joint family trust known as “Mohanlal Family Charitable Trust” also 14
RC.No.224/2015
known as Shiv Bhavan Dharmasala Trust and that the respondent has taken the lease of the premises from the original owners of the joint family members of late Lalitha Pershad and after purchase, they became the landlords and that the respondent and his family members have been carrying on jewellery business from the date of its lease and that the petitioner never intimated the date of death of his father and that the petitioner or any other joint family member chose to inform either orally or in writing intimating the person authorized/entrusted with the collection of rent and the mode of payment and the respondent informed the same through his reply notice dt.10.11.2014 & 30.12.2014 and on receipt of the same also there was no response from the petitioner and his counsel.
17.Whenever there is a dispute with regard to jural relationship, the burden lies on the landlord to establish that there is jural relationship between the landlord and tenant. In the present case, the burden lies on the petitioner to establish that there is a jural relationship between the petitioner and respondents in respect of petition schedule premises.
15
RC.No.224/2015
18.To prove his contention, the petitioner himself is examined as
PW.1 and filed his chief examination affidavit and reiterated the contents of the petition in his chief affidavit and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.
19.Ex.P1 is the office copy of legal notice dt.14.10.2014. Ex.P2 is the original postal receipt dt.15.10.2014. Ex.P3 is the office copy of reply dt.10.11.2014. Ex.P4 is the original postal envelop dt.17.11.2014. Ex.P5 is the office copy of rejoinder dt.22.11.2014. Ex.P6 is the original postal receipt dt.28.11.2014. Ex.P7 is the office copy of notice dt.30.12.2014 and
Ex.P8 is the rough sketch plan.
20.On the other hand, the respondent No.3 filed his chief examination affidavit as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.18.
21.Ex.R.1 is the Certified copy of the compromise final decree in partition suit in OS.No.239/1998 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R2 is the Certified copy of the order in
RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R3
is the Certified copy of the petition in RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl.
16
RC.No.224/2015
Rent Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R4 is the Certified copy of the counter in RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad.
Ex.R5 is the Certified copy of the chief examination affidavit of the petitioner/PW1 in RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court,
Hyderabad.Ex.R6 is the Certified copy of the cross examination of PW1 in
RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R7
is the Certified copy of the chief examination affidavit of respondent /RW1 in RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad.
Ex.R8 is the Certified copy of the cross examination of respondent/RW1 in
RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R9
is the Certified copy of the legal notice dt: 05.10.2007 got issued by the petitioner to the respondent in RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent
Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R10 is the Certified copy of the reply notice
dt: 15.11.2007 by the respondent to the legal notice dt: 05.10.2007 got
issued by the petitioner to the respondent in RC.487/2007 on the file of I
Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R11 is the Certified copy of the order/judgment in RA.No.48/2010 on the file of the Hon’ble Addl. Chief
Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R12 is the Copy of
partnership deed dt: 25.07.1991. Ex.R13 is the Copy of the reconstitution 17
RC.No.224/2015
of the partnership deed dt: 28.01.2019. Ex.R14 is the Certificate of registration under the AP General Sale Tax Act, 1957. Ex.R15 is the No objection certificate issued by the late Lalita Prasad Gupta.
Ex.R16 is the Property tax demand notice issued by the GHMC for the petition schedule premises. Ex.R17 is the Copy of the money order form
dt: 28.01.2014 in favour of Late Lalita Prasad Gupta from M/s. Jagan
Prasad Bajranglal & Co. Ex.R18 is the Copy of the Money order form dt:
18.04.2014 in favour of Late Lalita Prasad Gupta from M/s. Jagan Prasad
Bajranglal & Co.
22.The learned counsel for the respondents cross examined PW.1 and could elicit the following:
“respondent and his father are tenant s at psp since from my forefathers . I am not aware about originally to whom the psp belongs. It is true that I am awre that psp was purchase by our forefathers. I do not know whether respondent 1 was tenant at psp prior to the purchasing of psp by my forefathers. It is true my father was in joint family. It is true psp is our joint family property. It is true one of the mulgi in ps premises was divided into two portions i.e., front portion and back portion and I am not able to recollect the door number of our entire premises house. The present tenant is in the occupation of front portion of the divided mulgi. It is true I have returned the money orders which sent by the respondents in the month of April 2014 for three months rent of April , may and June as it was sent in the name of my father who died prior to that on 14.02.2014 18
RC.No.224/2015
It is true that there was a compromise decree between the family members of my father. It is true my father along with five other joint family members got three mulgies towards their share and the mulgi numbers are 21-2- 191, 21-2-192 and 21-2-193 and my father is having one sixth share in all the three mulgies. It is true my father used to look after the management of three mulgies and collection of rents. It is true the remaining five share holders entrusted the said responsibility to my father. It is true my father earlier filed eviction petition against the respondent No.1 vide RC.No.487/2007 on the file of the
Hon’ble I Additional Rent Controller, CSCC, Hyderabad. The said eviction petition
filed under the ground of personal requirement and willful default. It is true that I have filed four eviction cases against remaining tenants of the said mulgies with same ground that is personal requirement and willful default, said three cases are pending before Hon’ble High Court for the state of Telangana. The RC.487/2007 filed by my father was settled as compromise between the parties. It is true during the life time of my father he did not took any steps for eviction of respondents herein and not claimed any arrears of rent.
It is true after the death of my father remaining five shareholders have not issued any notice to the tenant for payment of rents, witness adds that it was not required as our family is having very much cordial relationship and I am have continued the same after the death of my father as usually attending of remaining works . It is true they have not entrusted the same in writing to me. I have went to Bajrang lal respondent No.1 to collect the rents. When I went to respondent No.1 for payment of rent he requested some time to pay the rent. After that I waited for several occasions and thereafter I have filed this present petition as respondent No.1 failed to pay the rent. I have filed this petition on my personal ground and also payment of arrears of rent amount. It is true psp is not exclusive property of my father. It is true that psp is our joint family property not exclusive property of my fathers legal heirs i.e., my mother, brother, myself and my sister. The respondents are tenants for more than 50 years. It is true I have mentioned in my petition that my mother, my brother and my sister gave oral authorization to me to issue legal notice and to file the eviction and I have not mentioned about given any authorization given by any other joint shareholders.
It is true the court was ordered not to withdraw the amount till disposal of the main RC in passed orders in the IA.164/2016 dt: 11.11.2016 by allowing the petition to deposit the rents. I cannot exact month of arrears of rent but prior to 2014 there was default of payment of rent. I cannot say from which month the respondents are depositing 19
RC.No.224/2015
the rents in the court after the court order as I am not verifying the same. I have not verified till today but the respondents might have deposited the rents as stated by you that the period from April, 2014 to till October, 2023. I came to know about the death of respondent No.1 through court”.
The learned counsel for the petitioner cross examined RW.1 and could elicit the following:
Sudheer Gupta filed the petition for Eviction and payment of arrears of rent. I do admit that Sudheer Gupta and his fathers joint family as landlords of petition schedule property. The present rent of petition schedule property is Rs.950/- per month. Since 2007 I am paying monthly rent @ Rs.950/- per month. I am not aware about the terms for enhancement of rent in respect of petition schedule property decided by petitioners or not as it was looked after by my father till his death till 2018. I have not taken any steps to pay the rents of petition schedule property after returning of the money order sent by me in the month of April, 2014. It is true my father received legal notice dt:14.10.2014 got issued by the petitioner calling up on to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the petition schedule property. I am not aware about any steps taken by my father with regarding payment of rents from 10.11.2014 i.e., date of reply notice issued by my father till 07.09.2014 i.e., date of filing of the present petition. It is true that after passing of the orders in IA.164/2016 dt: 11.11.2016 we are depositing the rents in the RC account in the court as per the orders. I know there is a law that as per Rent Control Act the tenant has to initiate proceedings for deposit of rents in the event of owner refuses to receive rent. It is true that petitioner is not in possession of any of the four shops and all the eviction cases are pending. It is true that my father filed counter in RC.487/2007 i.e., Ex.R4. It is true that my father in his counter under Ex.R4 admitted that they were the tenants prior to purchasing of petition schedule property by Lalita Prasad Joint family. It is true that in general a trust or darmashala to be registered in Endowment or any other way of registration authorities. Witness adds that, but the petitioner joint family not got registered the trust in endowment as there was no endowment department in the year 1958 when the family trust of petitioner joint family established the trust with the name ‘Shivbhavan Dharmashala Trust’. Witness identified the petition schedule property as the middle portion which shown in red colour of Ex.P8.
23. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondents are the tenants and not paying the rents and default of rent after the death of father of the petitioner and petitioner required the petition schedule premises for his personal requirement and he filed the present petition as the legal heir of his father late Laitha Peshad Gupta by taking consent of other legal heirs of late Laitha Pershad Gupta, who are his mother , brother and sister. But the respondent denied the same by stating that petition schedule premises is not exclusive property of the late Lalith
Pershad Guptha as such petitioner herein cannot file the petition as legal heir of late late Laitha Peshad Gupta with out taking consent of other family members of late Laitha Peshad Gupta and it is not sufficient of taking consent of wife and children of late Laitha Pershad Gupta where the petition schedule premises is joint family property of late Laitha Pershad
Gupta along with his brothers and late Laitha Pershad Gupta got one sixth share over the petition schedule premises along with other four mulgies at petition schedule premises for which respondent filed Ex.R.15 where it clearly says that all the family members together gave petition schedule premises on rent to respondent No.1 who is father of respondent
No.2 and 3. Further as per Ex.R.2 late Laitha Peshad Gupta filed one eviction petition against the respondent No.1 during his life time by stating himself as the joint owner of joint family property along with his brothers .
21
24. The contention of the respondent about non maintainability of present petition where all the family members consent not obtained by the petitioner to file the petition as petition has to be dismissed for non joinder of proper parties. But it is admitted by the petitioner and respondent that late Laitha Pershad Gupta used to collect the rents and he took all the responsibility to look after the properties and there was no objection from the joint family members of late Laitha Pershad Gupta. It is also stated by the petitioner in his cross-examination that all of the family members including joint family members of his father have no objection and their family having cooperation with each other. Further it is admitted by the petitioner about petition schedule premises not exclusive property of late
Laitha Pershad Gupta and his legal heirs and late Laitha Peshad Gupta having one sixth share over petition schedule premises and other family members of his father’s brothers having share over the petition schedule premises and he did not took any oral or written consent from other share holders and he obtained only the consent of legal heirs of his father which clearly reveals that there is no denial of share of other family members by the petitioner herein he is admitting about other share holders’ right over the petition schedule premises and this petition is filed by him for his personal requirement and the respondent committed default of payment of rent. It is admitted by the respondent about he used to send the rents to 22 the father of petitioner i.e., late Laitha Peshad Gupta and after returning of money order sent by him in the month of April 2014 then he stopped payment of rent which clearly reveals that respondent used to send the rents to father of the petitioner and after the death o f the father of the petitioner , petitioner herein took initiation to collect the rents and sent legal notice under Ex.P1 exhibit but respondent No.1 failed to pay the rents as such this petition filed by the petitioner herein. Though the petitioner herein is not exclusive share holder of petition schedule premises but that was not an objection to the respondent for payment of rents where it is the duty of the respondent to pay the rents to the owners of the petition schedule premises and since from life time of late Laitha Pershad Gupta respondent send the rents through money order in the name of late Laitha
Pershad Gupta in the month of April 2014 was returned as said late
Laitha Pershad Gupta died by that time. But the respondent never tried to send the rents in the name of other share holders which reveals that the late Laitha Peshad Gupta himself collected the rents and after the death of his father, the petitioner alone took responsibility to collect the rents as a legal heir of late Laitha Peshad Gupta and now the petitioner filed the petition against the respondent for non payment of the rents by the respondent in respect of psp. Further filing of this petition by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent for non payment of rents cannot 23 take away the rights of other shareholders where they have every chance to recover the money collected by one of the shareholder if one of the shareholder denied to handover the share of other shareholders and the same is no way concerned with the respondent. It is admitted by the petitioner about partition of the proprieties among the brothers of his father and having share of other family members of his father and his father is not exclusive owner of the joint family property but the same cannot be questioned by the respondent as this is not the place to decide the rights of the parties and this court is having limited jurisdiction to look after the relationship between petitioner and respondent as landlord and tenant.
25.Moreover if we look into the definition of landlord under 2(vi) of RC
Act.
Section 2(vi) of the Act defines landlord as hereunder:
“Landlord” means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant;
Explanation:- A tenant who sub-lets a building shall be deemed to be a landlord within the meaning of this Act relation in to the subtenant”.
24
26.The learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision in Mahender Kumar Gandhi Vs. Bindesh Kamdar reported in 2017(5) ALD 74 and the facts of the above case are not applicable to the fats of the present case on hand.
27.Further Ex.P1, Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 and evidence of petitioner and respondents reveals that father of the petitioner took responsibility to collect the rents of petition schedule premises and other joint family properties on behalf of all the family members of father of petitioner and after his death, the petitioner look after the same. Accordingly he issued Ex.p1 to the respondent No.1 with regard to non payment of monthly rents and also requirement of petition schedule premises for him and the respondent No.1 never tried to offer the rents to any of the shareholders, other than the father of the petitioner, as such it can be considered to collection of rent by the petitioner cannot give title to the petitioner and it will not deny the share of other shareholders. Moreover, Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.18 not in support of the contention of respondents with regarding filing of the present petition by the petitioner alone is not maintainable without joining of other shareholders where all the documents reveals about the litigation between the father of the 25 petitioner/landlord and the respondent No.1/tenant in respect of petition schedule premises for eviction of respondent No.1.
28.Hence, in view of the above said discussion this court is of the opinion that there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenants between the petitioner and respondents in respect of petition schedule premises. Accordingly, this point is answered against the respondents.
P O I N T No.2:-
29.The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent has not paid the monthly rents after the death of his father and committed default in payment of monthly rents in respect of petition schedule premises.
30.On the other hand, the respondent No.1 denied the same by stating that he sent the rent through money orders and also depositing the rents in I.A.No.164/2016 dt.11.11.2016.
31.it is admitted by the respondent that he did not pay the rents after the returning of money order which sent by him in the month of April 2014 and also admitted that respondent started depositing the rents in the 26 court account after passed orders in IA.164/2016 and further admitted that he did not took any steps to pay the rents. He also stated that he is aware about the Act when the petitioner/landlord refused to collect the rents then as per the section 8 of the RC Act, the respondent has to approach the court for deposit of rents. Though it is denied by the respondent that petitioner is not exclusive owner of petition schedule premises and father of of the petitioner is not exclusive owner of the petition schedule premises and father of the petitioner having only one sixth share over the petition schedule premises and the other family members of the father of the petitioner having their share over the petition schedule premises. But respondent herein did not took any steps to pay the rents or offered the rents to any of the shareholder immediately after the death of the father of the petitioner who used to collect the rents during his life time. Further respondent did not took any steps to take permission to pay the rents to whom out of all the shareholders where the main contention of the respondent that petition schedule premises is not exclusive property of petitioner and the other family members are having their share over the petition schedule premises. But no steps have been taken by him to pay the rents to any of the shareholder or to deposit the rents in the name of all the shareholders where it is the bounded duty of the respondent /tenant to pay the rents to the landlord with out fail.
27
32.On perusal of Ex.R1 to Ex.R.18 filed by the respondents by stating that as per filed documents, father of the petitioner is not the exclusive owner of the petition schedule premises and he got only 1/6th share in it. Further Ex.R.1 reveals the same having 1/6th share to each shareholder where Ex.R.1 is about the partition among the petitioner and his family members and allotment of 1/6th share to the petitioner along with his family members, as such the respondents stating about having only 1/6th share over the petition schedule property along with other family members of father of petitioner and father of the petitioner and petitioner are not exclusive owners of petition schedule property, but the dispute and the transaction took place between father of the petitioner and the respondent NO.1 and the same continued by respondent No.2 and 3 after the death of respondent No.1 by stating about there is no willful default on part of respondents as they are regularly paying the rents, when the father of the petitioner refused to receive the monthly rents, then the respondent No.1 started sending the rent through money order.
33. Further Ex.R.2 reveals that the eviction petition filed by the father of the petitioner against the respondent No.1 and the same was dismissed as there is no willful default on part of the respondent No.1 and father of petitioner failed to establish requirement of the premises 28 bonafidely and genuine. In Ex.R.2 the respondent therein stated that he does not know about partition suit vide O.S.No.239/1998 under Ex.R.1 and compromise decree passed therein, but the petitioner has been collecting the rents from him for the last 5 to 6 years and previously the family members of the petitioners are used to collect the rents from him, where the respondent therein had taken the lease premises more than 50 years back from the vendors of the petitioners therein and he paid rent upto March 2008 in advance since the petitioner has been refusing to receive the rents, he has been sending the rents through money order since long time and the same was acknowledged by the petitioner which reveals about filed petition by the father of the petitioner against the respondent No.1 and legal notice was also send to vacate and hand over the premises to father of petitioner for personal requirement and when father of the petitioner refused to receive the rents, then the respondent
No.1 started sending the rent through money order, as such considering the same that the respondent No.1 paying the rents and there is no willful default on part of respondent and there is no default in payment of monthly rents and said petition under Ex.R2 was dismissed. Now the present litigation is nothing but second round of litigation with a complaint of default in payment of monthly rents by the tenants and the rent was sent by the respondent No.1 through money order which was returned by 29 stating that father of the petitioner died, then no steps have been taken by the respondent No.1 to pay the rents without any gap where he was very much aware about having litigation with his landlord with regarding non payment of monthly rents.
34.Where it is well settled law that the obligation of the tenant to pay or tender the rent cannot be said to have been discharge unless and until the landlords were posted with the information along with particulars enabling them to withdraw the amount, but the same was not happened in this case though it is a second round of litigation, but again there was no payment of rent by the respondent No.1 immediately after returning of money orders sent by him in the month of April 2014 in the name of father of petitioner by stating that the father of the petitioner died. Further there was no deposit of rent by the respondent No.1 till passing of orders in
I.A.164/2016 dt.11.1.2016 by this court, which amounts to committing default of payment of monthly rent by the respondent No.1 in respect of petition schedule premises.
35.Hence, in view of the above said discussion, this court is of the opinion that the respondent No.1 has committed default in payment of 30 monthly rents in respect of petition schedule premises as contended by the petitioner. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner.
P O I N T No.3:-
36.The contention of the petitioner is that he he intends to start his own business in the petition schedule premises and he is not in occupation of any commercial property in and over Hyderabad city or at any other place and that the petition schedule premises is situated at
Charminar area being famous for all kinds of business.
37.On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner himself shown his occupation as agriculture in the description of the cause title of the petition and intending to establish any business is hollow and the same ground is taken in all other eviction cases filed and even in the earlier round of litigation against the respondent.
38.Whenever there is a bonafide requirement ground pleaded by the landlord, the burden lies on him to establish that the requirement of petition schedule premises by him is bonafide.
31
39.The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the following decisions:
(1)In Sheela and others Vs Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash reported in
AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1264 (2)In Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal reported in AIR 2002
Supreme Court 2256
The facts of the above cases are not applicable to the fats of the present case on hand.
40.Though the learned counsel for the respondent cross examined
PW.1 at length, but could not elicit anything that the requirement of petition schedule premises by the petitioner is not bonafide.
41. For which this court also relied on a decision in Krishna
Kumar Rastogi Vs. Sumitra Devi reported in AIR 2014 SC 3635 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
“It is the choice of the landlord to choose the place for
the business which is most suitable for him and he has
complete freedom in the matter and the landlord is the
best judge of his requirement and courts have no
concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what
manner he should live”.
32
42. Further the respondents stated that the petitioner herein filed petitions against other tenants for eviction with same grounds, as such the present petition is not maintainable, but the evidence of witnesses reveals about still the said cases at not yet decided where they are pending before
Honourable Appellate Courts and before Honourable High Court and that
there is no relief to the petitioner in any above cases. From the above said evidence, it can be concluded that the requirement of the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule premises is bonafide, genuine and pressing.
43. In view of the above said discussion and in the light of the above said decision, it can be concluded that the requirement of petitioner in respect of petition schedule premises is bonafide requirement and that this court is of the opinion that the hardship caused to the respondents did not overweigh the benefits to the petitioner if the respondent evicted from the petition schedule premises. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner.
P O I N T No.4:-
44.In view of findings in points No.1 to 3, the petitioner is entitled for eviction of the respondents in respect of petition schedule premises.
33
45. In the result, the petition is allowed without costs and the respondents are directed to vacate the petition schedule premises and hand over the physical and vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the petitioner within two months from the date of the order. In case of failure, the petitioner is at liberty to evict the respondents by following under due process of law.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 17th day of November, 2023.
FAC I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for
Petitioner Respondents:
PW.1 : Sudheer GuptaRW.1 : Anil Agarwal
Documents marked for
Petitioner:-
Ex.P1: Office copy of legal notice dt.14.10.2014. Ex.P2: Original postal receipt dt.15.10.2014. Ex.P3: Office copy of reply dt.10.11.2014. Ex.P4: Original postal envelop dt.17.11.2014. Ex.P5: Office copy of rejoinder dt.22.11.2014. Ex.P6: Original postal receipt dt.28.11.2014. Ex.P7: Office copy of notice dt.30.12.2014 Ex.P8: Rough sketch plan.
34
Respondents:
Ex.R1: Certified copy of the compromise final decree in partition suit in
OS.No.239/1998 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad. Ex.R2: Certified copy of the order in RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R3: Certified copy of the petition in RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R4: Certified copy of the counter in RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R5: Certified copy of the chief examination affidavit of the petitioner/PW1 in RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R6: Certified copy of the cross examination of PW1 in RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R7: Certified copy of the chief examination affidavit of respondent /RW1 in RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R8: Certified copy of the cross examination of respondent/RW1 in
RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad.
Ex.R9: Certified copy of the legal notice dt: 05.10.2007 got issued by the petitioner to the respondent in RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R10: Certified copy of the reply notice dt: 15.11.2007 by the respondent to the legal notice dt: 05.10.2007 got issued by the petitioner to the respondent in RC.487/2007 on the file of I Addl. Rent Control Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R11: Certified copy of the order/judgment in RA.No.48/2010 on the file of the Hon’ble Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Ex.R12: Copy of partnership deed dt: 25.07.1991. Ex.R13: Copy of the reconstitution of the partnership deed dt: 28.01.2019. Ex.R14: Certificate of registration under the AP General Sale Tax Act, 1957. Ex.R15: No objection certificate issued by the late Lalita Prasad Gupta. Ex.R16: Property tax demand notice issued by the GHMC for the petition schedule premises. Ex.R17: Copy of the money order form dt: 28.01.2014 in favour of Late Lalita Prasad Gupta from M/s. Jagan Prasad Bajranglal & Co.
35
Ex.R18: Copy of the Money order form dt: 18.04.2014 in favour of Late Lalita Prasad Gupta from M/s. Jagan Prasad Bajranglal & Co.
FAC I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY
All that shop NO.21-2-192, admeasuring 122 sft., situated at Vallabh Das Building, Charkaman, Hyderabad and bounded by:
North:Owners mulgi No.21-2-191 South:Owners mulgi No.21-2-193 East:Passage West:Owner’s mulgi NO.21-2-192/A
FAC I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
36 37 38
RC.No.50 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: T. Nagarani,
Principal Rent Controller,
Hyderabad. FAC IV Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this 5th day of October, 2023.
R.C.No.50 of 2019
Between:
1. G. Shantha Bai W/o. Late G.T. Babu Rao, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Household,
2. G. Keshar S/o. Late G.T. Babu Rao, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Pvt. Service,
3. G. Mahesh S/o. Late G.T. Babu Rao, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Pvt. Service,
All are R/o.1-3-120 to 122, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.
4. Smt. Sushma W/o. P. Lakshman Savannur, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Basappa Lane, Tannery Road, Farzer Town, Bangalore presently comedown to Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
Mrs. G. Rajeshwari W/o. Mr. Mallikarjuna, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Housewife, Tenant of premises forming part of H.No.1-8-597 & 2
RC.No.50 of 2019
1-8-599, Achayya Nagar, Baghlingampally, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Chamala Srinivas, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri B. Ram Mohan, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(iii), 10(3)(a)(iii)(a) and Section 12 of Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act seeking eviction of respondent in respect of one room forming part of house bearing municipal No.1-8-597 & 1-8-599, situated at Achayya Nagar, Baghlingampally, Chikkadpally,
Hyderabad(hereinafter it is referred as petition schedule premises).
2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-
The petitioner No.1 is the mother of petitioners No.2 to 4 and late G.T. Babu Rao, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners
No.2 to 4 and that late Shiv Shaker is the step brother of late G.T. Babu
Rao, brother in law of petitioner No.1 and paternal uncle of the petitioners
No.2 to 4 and that late Shiv Shaker was bachelor and was the owner of 3
RC.No.50 of 2019
house bearing No.1-8-597 & 1-8-599, admeasuring 462 square yards, situated at Achayya Nagar, Chikkadpally, Baghlingampalli, Hyderabad and that Shiv Shanker Reddy died on 17.2.1978 and after his demise his brother G.T. Babu Rao used to look after the property and that G.T. Balaji and Smt. Y. Lakshmi the brother and sister of G.T. Babu Rao filed suit vide bearing O.S.No.1684/1996 before Honourable V Senior Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad for partition against the other brothers and legal heirs of deceased brothers in respect of house bearing No.1-8-597 and 1-8- 599, admeasuring 462 square yards, situated at Achayya Nagar,
Chikkadpally, Baghlingampalli, Hyderabad and preliminary decree dt.6.3.2006 in the said suit and as confirmed by the Honourable High
Court as per judgment dt.10.12.2010 in CCCA No.193/2006.
3.The petitioners further submitted that the petitioners filed
I.A.No.283/2012 in O.S.No.1684/1996 before Honourable V Senior Civil
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and matter was settled between the
parties therein and accordingly both the parties have entered into compromises and the same have been recorded and thereby passed the compromise final decree for partition suit in the said petition and after the 4
RC.No.50 of 2019
compromise final decree for partition in I.A.No.283/2012, the same was registered as a document No.835/2019 registered in the office of Sub
Registrar Chikkadpally, Hyderabad and that as per compromise final decree for partition, the petitioners became absolute owners of part of
H.No.1-8-597 & 1-8-599 admeasuring 86.17 square yards of 775.54 square feet and that the respondent is the tenant of petition schedule premises, fallen to the share of the petitioners and that the respondent was tenant of said premises since last 30 years and the same was obtained from Sri G.T. Babu Rao’s wife and the present monthly rent is Rs.1000/- exclusive of electricity and water consumption charges to be borne by the tenant and the tenancy is oral and month to month as per english calendar month and as and when the respondent paid rent she used to take endorsement from the petitioner No.3 in the rent note book maintained by the respondent.
4.The petitioners further submitted that the respondent lastly paid rent for the month August 2018, for which the petitioner No.3 endorsed the same in the said rent note book and thereafter the petitioner
No.3 orally requested orally requested the respondent to vacate the 5
RC.No.50 of 2019
premises on the ground of personal requirement of the petitioners No.1 and 4, but the respondent failed to vacate the same and stopped paying the monthly rent from September 2018 onwards inspite of repeated oral demands made by the petitioner No.3 and the respondent intentionally and willfully with-held the monthly rents and due of arrears of rent from
September 2018 to February 2019 for six months @ Rs.1000/- per month amounting to Rs.6000/-.
5.The petitioners further submitted that the respondent committed act of waste which impaired materially the value and utility of petition schedule premises and that the persons of respondent have caused damage to the walls, roof, flooring in the petition schedule premises and as the respondent is not maintain the petition schedule premises, due to which caused damage to the petition schedule premises.
The petitioners further submitted that the petitioner No.4 is residing in
Bangalore in a rented house and she has no sufficient means to survive in
Bangalore, as such the petitioner No.3 intend to shift her residence from
Bangalore to petition schedule premises and adjoining premises which is under the occupation of another tenant by name K.L. Govindaraju and 6
RC.No.50 of 2019
that the petitioner No.4 along with petitioner No.1 intends to reside in the above said two portions and that the petition schedule premises along with adjoining premises is suitable and convenient for residential purpose and that the petitioner No.4 issued a notice dt.21.11.2018 to the respondent demanding to vacate the petition schedule premises for their bonafide requirement and having receipt of the said notice, the respondent neither vacated the premises nor paying the monthly rents and also failed to issue any reply to that effect. The petitioners made oral demands as well as in writing, but the respondent failed to vacate the petition schedule premises.
6.The petitioners further submitted that the petition schedule premises is more than 65 years old and the building has become dangerous to the life of the public in general and the occupants of the premises and the entire building may collapse at any time and that the petitioners are financially sound to invest required amount for demolition and reconstruction of the building on their share of house and the petition schedule premises is reasonably and bonafidely required by the petitioners for immediate purpose of demolition, as such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to 7
RC.No.50 of 2019
be demolished for the residence of petitioners No.1 and 4 and that they are not under the obligation to give an undertaking to deliver possession of newly constructed premises to the respondent and that they filed cases against the other tenant occupying the other portions of the property in the building in which the petition schedule premises is part and parcel for eviction on the similar grounds. Hence, this petition.
7.The respondent filed counter, denying the petition averments by stating that the petitioners are put to strict proof of their relationship with the original owner of the petition schedule premises and that neither this respondent nor any of the other respondents are not made as parties to the alleged partition suit goes to show that the petitioners are not speaking the truth and that the area of the entire house as mentioned is incorrect and there is no devolution of the title in favour of the petitioners and that there is no relationship of landlords and tenant existed between the petitioners and respondent and that the respondent is staying in portion of premises bearing No.1-8-597 having constructed in her own name, hence the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground.
8
RC.No.50 of 2019
8.The respondent further submitted that the petition schedule premises does not show any area in the schedule and she denied that an area of 86.17 square yards is in her occupation and that she is in occupation of larger extent in the petition schedule premises since more than 50 years and she never paid rents either to petitioners or anybody else claiming on their behalf and there was no property tax in respect of petition schedule premises, in fact recently the property tax appears to have been paid by some persons on behalf of petitioners and property tax stands in the name of Smt. G. Gouramma which clearly goes to show that the petitioners are not the owners of petition schedule premises and there is no clarity as to who is the owner of the same.
9.The respondent further submitted that the question of ever committing default in payment of rents does not arise and that the respondent has not committed any act of waste and has been properly maintaining in neat and good condition under her occupation and that the respondent has got perfected her title over not only the premises shown as petition schedule property, but also portion of adjacent portion. The respondent denies that the petitioner No.4 is residing in a rented premises 9
RC.No.50 of 2019
in Bangalore and that only for the purpose of setting up the ground for eviction of the respondent and that the petitioner No.4 never orally demanded the respondent to vacate the petition schedule premises. The respondent further submitted that the petitioners cannot demolish the petition schedule premises or reconstruct the same as they do not have any right, title or interest over the same and they are seeking demolition of the same only with a view to evict the respondent from the petition schedule premises by hook or crook with an oblique motive and that the respondent has been residing in the petition schedule premises for the last more than 50 years without paying rents to any one and she has perfected her title over and upon the entire property by way of adverse possession and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
10.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner No.1 examined herself is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On the other hand, the respondent herself is examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3.
11. Heard both the learned counsel.
10
RC.No.50 of 2019
12.To consider the rival contentions of both the parties, the following points that arose for consideration are:
(1) Whether there is any jural relationship of landlords and tenant between the petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises and whether the denial of title of the petitioner by the respondent in respect of petition schedule premises is bonafide or not??
(2) Whether the respondent has committed willful default in payment of rents from September 2018 to February 2019 @ Rs.1000/- for a period of 9 months @ Rs.1000/- per month, amounting to Rs.6,000/- in respect of petition schedule premises?
(3)Whether the petitioners are entitled for eviction of the respondent for dismantling the petition schedule premises which is in dilapidated condition and for reconstruction and redeliver the possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondent?
(4)Whether the respondent has committed act of waste in respect of petition schedule premises?
(5)Whether the requirement of petition schedule premises by the petitioners is bonafide?
(6)To what relief?
11
RC.No.50 of 2019
P O I N T No.1:-
13. The contention of the petitioners is that as per compromise final decree for partition in I.A.No.283/2012 in O.S.No.1684/1996 before
Honourable V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the
petitioners became absolute owners of part of H.No.1-8-597 & 1-8-599 admeasuring 86.17 square yards of 775.54 square feet and that the respondent is the tenant of petition schedule premises, fallen to the share of the petitioners and that the respondent was tenant of said premises since last 35 years and the same was obtained from Sri G.T. Babu Rao’s wife and the present monthly rent is Rs.1000/- exclusive of electricity and water consumption charges to be borne by the tenant and the tenancy is oral and month to month as per English calendar month and as and when the respondent paid rent he used to take endorsement from the petitioner
No.3 in the rent note book maintained by the respondent.
14.On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that there is no jural relationship of lanlords and tenant between the petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises and 12
RC.No.50 of 2019
that the respondent is staying in portion of premises bearing No.1-8-597 having constructed in her own name.
15.Whenever there is a dispute with regard to jural relationship, the burden lies on the petitioners/landlords to establish that there is jural relationship between the petitioners and respondent as landlords and tenant in respect of petition schedule premises.
16. To prove the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.
17. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of registered compromise final decree for partition suit in I.A.No.238/2012 in O.S.No.1648 of 1996 dt.8.10.2018 on the file of Hon’ble V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad. Ex.P2 is the sketch plan in respect of petition schedule premises. Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice dt.21.11.2018. Ex.P4 is the original postal receipt dt.21.11.2018. Ex.P5 is the original postal acknowledgment card dt.3.12.2018. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of sale deed dt.5.12.1996 along with transaction in English. Ex.P7 is the certified 13
RC.No.50 of 2019
copy of property tax dated dt.25.1.2020. Ex.P8 is the property tax payment receipt dt.27.1.2020 and Ex.P9 is the certified copy of encumbrance certificate.
18. On the other hand, the respondent herself is examined as
RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3.
19. Ex.R.1 is the Indian Oil Corporation Limited Gas Book customer subscription voucher, dated 20.6.1983. Ex.R.2 is the Aadhar card of the respondent dt.15.2.2016 and Ex.R.3 is the rough sketch plan of the petition schedule property prepared by herself.
20.The learned counsel for the respondent cross examined PW.1 and could elicit the following:
“The original owner by name Shiva Shankar died in the year 1978. At the time of death of Shiva Shankar, the respondent was the tenant. At the time of filing of the partition suit in O.S.No.1684 of 1996 the tenants are in occupation of petition schedule property. The tenant Govinda Raju occupied with three rooms and another by name Rajeshwari occupied one room. It is true that during the rainy seasons the respondent has carried out some repairs to the petition schedule property”.
14
RC.No.50 of 2019
21.Further the learned counsel for the petitioners cross examined
RW.1 and could elicit the following:
“Originally my husband obtained the schedule property on rent from one Gowramma and initial rent was Rs.25/- per month. It is true the petitioners got issued notice under Ex.P3 prior to filing of the present RC and the same was received by me under Ex.P5, the signature on the Ex.P5 belongs to me. It is true by issuing notice under Ex.P3 the petitioners informed me that they become the owners of the petition schedule property by virtue of partition decree dated 23.10.2018 passed in
O.S.No.1684/1996 and thereby requested me to vacate the petition
schedule property on the ground of personal requirement. It is true that after receipt of the same notice under Ex.P5 I have not issued any reply. It is true after receipt of the summons in the present case till today I have not visited the registration office and municipal office to ascertain the ownership over the petition schedule property building. I have not obtained any permission for construction of the petition schedule property as stated in my chief affidavit. I have not filed any documentary proof to show that I have constructed the petition schedule property by spending my own money. I have not issued any notice to the landlord informing that the property under my occupation was collapsed. According to me the owner of the property used to collect the rent from me but there is no practice of endorsing in the rent notice book maintained by me. It is true till today we have not challenged the compromised final decree for partition suit passed in O.S.No.1684/1996 under Ex.P1. I do not know the said Shiv Shhankar was unmarried and he died in the year 1979 thereafter his brothers being the only legal heirs of Late Shiv Shankar filed a partition suit for partitioning the properties owned by late Shiv Shanker vide O.S.No.1684/1996 in the file of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. I never paid property tax in respect of petition schedule property at any point of time. Witness adds that the property tax notices issued in the name of Gowramma in respect of petition schedule property till passing the final decree in O.S.No.1684/1996”.
15
RC.No.50 of 2019
The further cross examination of RW.1 is as follows:- “I do not know after passing of the final decree in
O.S.NO.1684/1996 the petitioners herein became the owners of the
petition schedule property and they mutated their names in municipal record accordingly the municipal authority allotted the bi numbers vide NO.1-8-598/A, vide PTI No.1150106494 under Ex.P7. I am in possession one room. We do not have any document to show that we are the owners of petition schedule property by virtue of any registered document”.
22.The contention of the petitioners is that late Shiv Shankar, who is bachelor was the owner of house bearing No.1-8-597 and 1-8-599 admeasuring 462 square yards situated at Achayya Nagar, Chikkadpally,
Baghlingampally, Hyderabad and after his demise Sri G.T. Babu Rao, who is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 and 4 used to look after the said property and that the brother and sister of said G.T.
Babu Rao filed suit vide O.S.No.1684/1996 before the Honourable V
Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for partition against the
other brothers and legal heirs of deceased brothers in respect of house bearing No.1-8-597 and 1-8-599, admeasuring 462 square yards, situated at Achayya Nagar, Chikkadpally, Baghlingampalli, Hyderabad and preliminary decree dt.6.3.2006 in the said suit and as confirmed by the
Honourable High Court as per judgment dt.10.12.2010 in CCCA
No.193/2006.
16
RC.No.50 of 2019
23.Though the respondent denied about the jural relationship between herself and the petitioners, but she has not filed any documents to disprove the contention of the petitioners that the petition schedule premises not fell into the share of petitioners under Ex.P1. Further she admitted that she has not visited the registration office and municipal office to ascertain the ownership over the petition schedule property building and that she has not filed any proof to show that she constructed the petition schedule property by spending her own money.
24.On perusal of Ex.P1 certified copy of registered compromise final decree for partition suit in I.A.No.238/2012 in O.S.No.1648/1996 dt.8.10.2018 on the file of Hon’ble V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, the same was filed by the petitioners No.1 to 3 and others against one G.T. Balaji @ Baioji and others in respect of property bearing
H.No.1-8-597 and 1-8-599 situated at Achayya Nagar, Chikkadpally,
Hyderabad admeasuring 462 square yards is agreed to be divided into five parts i.e., A, B, C, D & E in which the petition schedule property is also included and that A Schedule property admeasuring 86.17 square yards or 75.54 square feet is allotted to the legal representatives of G.T. Babu Rao 17
RC.No.50 of 2019
i.e., G. Shantha Bai(petitioner No.1 herein), G. Keshar(petitioner No.2 herein), G. Mahesh(petitioner No.3 herein) and Smt. Sushma(Petitioner
No.4 herein). Further on perusal of Ex.P6 certified copy of sale deed dt.5.12.1996 along with translation in English, one Gaddam Gauramma being the owner is in possession of house bearing No.1-8-597 208.16 square yards situated at Azamabad, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad sold the same for a total sale consideration of Rs.700/- of Indian currency, half of which amount is calculated to Rs.350/- of the same currency in favour of
Mr. Shiv Shankar Tukoji. During the course of cross examination, RW.1 stated that she does not know whether the petition schedule property building was sold by Gowramma in the year 1966 to one Shiv Shankar under Ex.P6. Further Ex.P1 reveals that the petition schedule premises was allotted to the legal representatives of G.T. Babu Rao i.e., the petitioners No.1 to 4 herein and as per Ex.P1, the petitioners herein are the owners of the petition schedule premises.
25.Further RW.1 admitted during the course of her cross examination that petitioners got issued notice under Ex.P3 prior to filing of the present RC and the same was received by her under Ex.P5 and by 18
RC.No.50 of 2019
issuign notice under Ex.P3 the petitioners informed her that they become the owners of the petition schedule property by virtue of partition decree dt.23.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.1684/1996 and requested her to vacate the petition schedule property. On perusal of Ex.P3 reveals that the petitioner No.4 issued the said notice to the respondent herein by stating that she acquired the petition schedule premises by partition in
O.S.No.1684/1996 along with her mother and brothers and after she
became the co-owner of the said property, herself and other family members have informed the respondent about their ownership and demanded the respondent to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the said property and that above said residential premises which is in occupation of respondent is in dilapidated condition and the same to demolish and construct the house.
26.Though the respondent denied about the jural relationship between herself and the petitioners, but after receipt of Ex.P3 legal notice, the respondent has not issued any reply notice to that effect. Further the respondent admitted that originally her husband obtained the schedule property on rent from one Gowramma and initial rent was Rs.25/- per 19
RC.No.50 of 2019
month. During the course of cross examination RW.1 also admitted that she does not know whether the petition schedule property building was sold by Gowramma in the year 1966 to one Shiv Shankar under Ex.P6.
27. Further the respondent admitted that she has not filed any documentary proof to show that she has constructed the petition schedule property by spending her own money and they are staying in the petition schedule property since last 45 years, as such they are claiming ownership over the property and they do not have any document to show that they are the owners of petition schedule property by virtue of any registered document. It clearly reveals that respondent residing in petition schedule premises and she is not owner of petition schedule premises and petitioners’ name entered by municipal authorities in mutation proceedings.
28.Moreover if we look into the definition of landlord under 2(vi) of
RC Act.
Section 2(vi) of the Act defines landlord as hereunder:
“Landlord” means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own 20
RC.No.50 of 2019
account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant;
Explanation:- A tenant who sub-lets a building shall be deemed to be a landlord within the meaning of this Act relation in to the subtenant”.
29.The definition of landlord under the Act is very wide and comprehensive and according to the definition, even a person who is entitled to receive rent on his behalf or others or as agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver appointed by the court would also fall within the definition of landlord.
30. Further the word tenant is defined under Section 2(ix) of the
Act defines tenant as hereunder:
“Tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son or daughter, of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of tenant’s family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building, by its tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter-house or of rents for shops has been framed out or leased by a local authority”.
21
RC.No.50 of 2019
31.In view of the definition of the word landlord and tenant, a person who is entitled to receive the rent for a building where on his own account on or on behalf of himself or on behalf of third party and in person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building is tenant.
Therefore, the court has to decide whether there is subsisting jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties initially.
32. Though respondent denied the jural relationship between herself and the petitioners as tenant and landlords in respect of petition schedule premises, but failed to prove that she is not the tenant in respect of petition schedule premises. Her evidence reveals that she is residing in petition schedule premises since last 45 years and she does not have any document to prove her ownership.
33. Further, the documents under Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 clearly established that the petitioners comes under the definition of landlord and respondent comes under the definition of tenant and that the jural relationship between the petitioners and respondent as landlords and 22
RC.No.50 of 2019
tenant subsists, as such the denial of title by the respondent is not bonafide, but malafide.
34. For which this court relied on the following decisions:
i.In Englesh Prasad Vs. N. Shravan Kumar reported in 2006(1) ALD 54, wherein it was held that:
“Conduct of tenant to be taken into consideration and no reply given to notice issued for arrears of rent and to vacate premises and except denying title, no acceptable evidence placed before court and committed willful default for sufficiently long time, pleadings adverse possession and clear evidence available on record relating to title and PW.2 deposed in detail how his family requires premises bonafidely since large family depends on him and payment of tax, enjoyment and title deeds clearly go to show that the property belongs to landlord’s family and object of tenant in taking a vague plea of adverse possession and denying landlords title appears to be with a view to delay proceedings and drive them to a civil court to have prolonged litigation and tenant’s denial, not bonafide one but a malafide denial of title”.
ii. In M/s Burugu Mahadev and Sons Vs. Sirigiri
Narsing Rao reported in AIR 2016 SC 433, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that:
“Denial of title and concluded that concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governs by Rent Control Act has to distinguished from, as one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a relative term, the import where of depends on the context it is used in the Rent Control legislation the landlord is said to be the 23
RC.No.50 of 2019
owner if he is entitled in his own legal right, has distinguished from, for and on behalf of someone else to evict the tenant and then to retain control, hold and use the premises for himself. What may suffice and hold could as proof of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation probably may or may not be enough to successfully sustain a claim for a ownership in a title suit”.
35. In the light of above said decisions, the person who is claiming eviction of the tenant need not prove title as in title suit, proof of his entitlement to recover rent from tenant is sufficient to order eviction of the tenant from the premises in occupation.
36. Though the respondent denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, but he failed to prove the same by adducing oral and documentary evidence to that effect and also failed to cross examine PW.1 on the said aspect that she is not the tenant in respect of petition schedule premises.
37. In view of the above said discussion, this court is of the opinion that there is jural relationship of landlords and tenant in between petitioners and respondent and that the denial of title of petitioners by the 24
RC.No.50 of 2019
respondent is malafide. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.
P O I N T No.2:-
38.The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent lastly paid rent for the month of August 2018, for which the petitioner No.3 endorsed the same in rent note book and thereafter the petitioner No.3 orally requested the respondent to vacate the premises on the ground of personal requirement of the petitioners No.1 and 4, but the respondent failed to vacate the same and stopped paying the monthly rent from
September 2018 onwards inspite of repeated oral demands made by the petitioner No.3 and intentionally and willfully with-held the monthly rents and due of arrears of rent from September 2018 to February 2019 for six months @ Rs.1000/- per month amounting to Rs.6000/-.
39.On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that there is no jural relationship of landlords and tenant between the petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises, as 25
RC.No.50 of 2019
such the question of ever committing default in payment of rents by the respondent does not arise.
40.Whenever the willful default ground pleaded by the landlord, the burden lies on the tenant to establish that he has not committed any willful default in payment of rent. In the present case also the burden lies on the respondent to establish that she has not committed any willful default in payment of rent to the petitioners in respect of petition schedule premises.
41. Though the respondent has denied the jural relationship of landlords and tenant in between the petitioners and herself, as such question of committing default by her does not arise, but to prove the said contention, the respondent did not choose to cross examine PW.1 on the said aspect that she has not committed any willful default in payment of monthly rent as she is not residing as tenant in petition schedule premises. As stated supra in point No.1, there is a jural relationship of landlords and tenant between the petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises.
26
RC.No.50 of 2019
42. In view of the discussion in point No.1, that there is jural relationship between the petitioners and respondent as landlords and tenant in respect of the petition schedule property.
43.The learned counsel for the petitioners cross examined RW.1 and could elicit the following:
“According to me the owner of the property used to collect the rent from me, but there is no practice of endorsing in the rent note book maintained by me. I never paid property tax in respect of petition schedule property at any point of time. According to me as we are staying in the petition schedule property since last 45 years therefore we are claiming ownership over the property. Since 45 years, as nobody came for collection of rent as such we have not paid the rents. I have not filed any rent deposit application before the Hon’ble Court for deposit of rent as the landlord not coming for collection of rent.”
44.In view of the admissions of RW.1 during the course of her cross examination with regarding collection of rent by the owner of the property from her and also there is no practice of endorsement in the rent note book which was maintained by the respondent herein, but she failed to file any documentary proof to show about payment of rent by her to the owner of the property and at the same time she also stated since 45 years nobody came for collection of rent, as such they have not paid the rent. As per the contention of the petitioners that the respondent paid the rent till 27
RC.No.50 of 2019
August 2018 and thereafter she is due of payment of rent from the month of September 2018 onwards and the cross examination of RW.1 clearly reveals about her committing default in payment of monthly rents to the owner of the petition scheudle premises. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the respondent has not paid the rents from September 2018 onwards to the petitioners as claimed by them and even after filing of RC by the petitioners also, the respondent has not paid the rents in respect of the petition schedule premises, as such the respondent has committed willful default in payment of rents to the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule premises. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.
P O I N T S No.3 and 4:-
45. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent committed act of waste which impaired materially the value and utility of petition schedule premises and that the persons of respondent have caused damage to the walls, roof, flooring in the petition schedule 28
RC.No.50 of 2019
premises and as the respondent is not maintain the petition schedule premises, due to which caused damage to the petition schedule premises.
46.The further contention of the petitioners is that the petition schedule premises is more than 65 years old and the building has become dangerous to the life of the public in general and the occupants of the premises and the entire building may collapse at any time and that the petitioners are financially sound to invest required amount for demolition and reconstruction of the building on their share of house and the petition schedule premises is reasonably and bonafidely required by the petitioners for immediate purpose of demolition, as such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished for the residence of petitioners No.1 and 4 and that they are not under the obligation to give an undertaking to deliver possession of newly constructed premises to the respondent
47.On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that she has not committed any act of waste and has been properly maintaining in neat and good condition under her occupation and that the petitioners 29
RC.No.50 of 2019
cannot demolish the petition schedule premises or reconstruct the same as they do not have any right, title or interest over the same and they are seeking demolition of the same only with a view to evict the respondent from the petition schedule premises by hook or crook with an oblique motive and that the respondent has been residing in the petition schedule premises for the last more than 50 years without paying rents to any one and she has perfected her title over and upon the entire property by way of adverse possession.
48.Whenever the ground of reconstruction of petition schedule premises and also the act of waste ground pleaded by the landlord, the burden lies on the landlord to establish the same. In the present case also the burden lies on the petitioners to establish that the petition schedule premises is in condition for reconstruction and that the respondent has committed act of waste in respect of petition schedule premises.
49. RW.1 denied a suggestion that she has committed act of waste which has impaired materially the value and utility of the petition schedule property therefore she is lacking the eviction on the act of waste. Further 30
RC.No.50 of 2019
the respondent in her counter stated that she is staying in portion of premises bearing No.1-8-597 having constructed in her own name, but during the course of her cross examination, RW.1 admitted that she has not obtained any permission for construction of the petition schedule property as stated in her chief affidavit and she has not filed any documentary proof to show that she has constructed the petition schedule property by spending her own money.
50.Hence, in view of the above said discussion and admission of
RW.1 during the course of her cross examination this court is of the opinion that there is no necessity of re-delivery of possession of petition schedule premises to the respondent by the petitioners as the respondent is claiming her ownership over the petition schedule premises where she stated that according to her as they are staying in the petition schedule premises since last 45 years therefore they are claiming ownership over the said property and she is not having electricity connection on her name and she does not have any document to show their ownership over the petition schedule premises, but she is claiming ownership over the petition schedule premises by stating that since 45 years no body came for 31
RC.No.50 of 2019
collection of rent. Further RW.1 also admitted in her cross examination that petition schedule property is an old premises and further the respondent has not filed any oral or documentary evidence to show that it will cause hardship if she evicted from the petition schedule premises except claiming her ownership over the petition schedule premises as she is residing in the petition schedule premises since 45 years and she constructed new building with her own funds, as such the respondent has committed act of waste in respect of petition schedule premises by stating that no permission has been taken by her from the owners for construction of the building as stated by her. Accordingly, these points are answered with regarding condition of the petition schedule premises.
P O I N T No.5:-
51.The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioner No.4 is residing in Bangalore in a rented house and she has no sufficient means to survive in Bangalore, as such intend to shift her residence from Bangalore to petition schedule premises and adjoining premises which is under the occupation of another tenant by name G. Rajeshwari and that the 32
RC.No.50 of 2019
petitioner No.4 along with petitioner No.1 intends to reside in the above said two portions and that the petition schedule premises along with adjoining premises is suitable and convenient for residential purpose and that the petitioner No.4 issued a notice dt.21.11.2018 to the respondent demanding to vacate the petition schedule premises for their bonafide requirement and having receipt of the said notice, the respondent neither vacated the premises nor paying the monthly rents and also failed to issue any reply to that effect. The further contention of the petitioners is that the petition schedule premises is more than 65 years old and the building has become dangerous to the life of the public in general and the occupants of the premises and the entire building may collapse at any time and the petition schedule premises is reasonably and bonafidely required by the petitioners for immediate purpose of demolition, as such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished for the residence of petitioners No.1 and 4 and that they are not under the obligation to give an undertaking to deliver possession of newly constructed premises to the respondent and that they filed cases against the other tenant occupying the other portions 33
RC.No.50 of 2019
of the property in the building in which the petition schedule premises is part and parcel for eviction on the similar grounds.
52.On the other hand, the respondent denies that the petitioner
No.4 is residing in a rented premises in Bangalore and that only for the purpose of setting up the ground for eviction of the respondent and that the petitioner No.4 never orally demanded the respondent to vacate the petition schedule premises and that the petitioners cannot demolish the petition schedule premises or reconstruct the same as they do not have any right, title or interest over the same and they are seeking demolition of the same only with a view to evict the respondent from the petition schedule premises by hook or crook with an oblique motive.
53.Admittedly, whenever the bonafide requirement ground is pleaded, the burden of proof lies on the petitioners to establish that the requirement of the petition schedule premises by the petitioners is bonafide one.
34
RC.No.50 of 2019
54. Though the respondent cross examined PW.1 at length, but could not elicit that the petitioner is having other non residential premises in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and he could not elicit anything in his favour. Except the bald allegation that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioners and respondent, the respondent did not choose to file single paper in support of his contention. Further the respondent also failed to file any document to show that petitioners are having any other non residential property occupied by them in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.
55. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioner No.4 intend to shift her residence from Bangalore to petition schedule premises and adjoining premises which is under the occupation of another tenant by name G. Rajeshwari and that the petitioner No.4 along with petitioner No.1 intends to reside in the above said two portions. Further the learned counsel for respondent could not elicit from the cross examination of PW.1 that the petitioners have any alternative accommodation or petitioners does not bonafidely require the petition schedule property for their own purpose. Further the petitioner No.1 is aged about 68 years at the time 35
RC.No.50 of 2019
of filing of the present RC which was filed on 1.4.2019 and she being a senior citizen is entitled for eviction of the respondent under 10-C of RC
Act.
56. For which this court also relied on a decision in Krishna
Kumar Rastogi Vs. Sumitra Devi reported in AIR 2014 SC 3635 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
“It is the choice of the landlord to choose the place for
the business which is most suitable for him and he has
complete freedom in the matter and the landlord is the
best judge of his requirement and courts have no
concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what
manner he should live”.
57. In view of the above said discussion and in the light of the above said decision, it can be concluded that the requirement of petitioners in respect of petition schedule premises is bonafide requirement and the benefits caused to landlords would over weigh the hardship caused to tenant. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the petitioners.
36
RC.No.50 of 2019
P O I N T No.6:-
58. Since the points No.1 to 5 are answered in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for.
59. In the result, the petition is allowed without costs and the respondent is directed to vacate the petition schedule premises and hand over the physical, vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the petitioners within two months from the date of the order. In case of failure, the petitioners are at liberty to evict the respondent by following the due process of law.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 5th day of October, 2023.
FAC IV ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for
Petitioners Respondent:
PW.1: G. Shantha Bai RW1: Smt. G. Rajeshwari 37
RC.No.50 of 2019
Documents marked for
Petitioners:-
Ex.P1: Certified copy of registered compromise final decree for partition suit in I.A.No.238/2012 in O.S.No.1648 of 1996 dt.8.10.2018 on the file of
Hon’ble V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Ex.P2: Sketch plan in respect of petition schedule premises. Ex.P3: Office copy of legal notice dt.21.11.2018. Ex.P4: Original postal receipt dt.21.11.2018. Ex.P5: Original postal acknowledgment card dt.3.12.2018. Ex.P6: Certified copy of sale deed dt.5.12.1996 along with transaction in English. Ex.P7: Property tax special notice new assessment dt.25.1.2020. Ex.P8: Property tax payment receipt dt.27.1.2020. Ex.P9: Encumbrance certificate.
For Respondent:
Ex.R.1: Indian Oil Corporation Limited Gas Book customer subscription voucher dated 20.6.1983. Ex.R.2: Aadhar card of the respondent dt.15.2.2016. Ex.R.3: Rough sketch plan of the petition schedule property.
FAC IV ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
38
RC.No.50 of 2019
SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY
All that one(1) room forming part of house bearing Municipal No.1-8- 597 & 1-8-599, situated at Achayya Nagar, Baghlingampally, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad and bounded by:
North:Part of H.No.1-8-597 & 1-8-599, South:Open space and road, East:Partition of G.T. Ganpath Rao & Common passage, West:Neighbours House.
FAC IV ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
39
RC.No.50 of 2019
40
RC.No.50 of 2019
RC.No.49 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: T. Nagarani,
Principal Rent Controller,
Hyderabad. FAC IV Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 5th day of October,, 2023.
R.C.No. 49 of 2019
Between:
1. G. Shantha Bai W/o. Late G.T. Babu Rao, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Household,
2. G. Keshar S/o. Late G.T. Babu Rao, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Pvt. Service,
3. G. Mahesh S/o. Late G.T. Babu Rao, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, All are R/o.1-3-120 to 122, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.
4. Smt. Sushma W/o. P. Lakshman Savannur, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Basappa Lane, Tannery Road, Farzer Town, Bangalore presently comedown to Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d K.L. Govindaraju S/o. Mr. Satjhyanarayana, Aged about 57 years, Occ: RTC Employee, Tenant of premises forming part of H.No.1-8-597 & 1-8-599, Achayya Nagar, Baghlingampally, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
2
RC.No.49 of 2019
This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Chamala Srinivas, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri B. Ram Mohan, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(iii), 10(3)(a)(iii)(a) and Section 12 of Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act seeking eviction of respondent in respect of three rooms forming part of house bearing municipal No.1-8-597 & 1-8-599, situated at Achayya Nagar, Baghlingampally, Chikkadpally,
Hyderabad(hereinafter it is referred as petition schedule premises).
2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-
The petitioner No.1 is the mother of petitioners No.2 to 4 and late G.T. Babu Rao, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners
No.2 to 4 and that late Shiv Shaker is the step brother of late G.T. Babu
Rao, brother in law of petitioner No.1 and paternal uncle of the petitioners
No.2 to 4 and that late Shiv Shaker was bachelor and was the owner of house bearing No.1-8-597 & 1-8-599, admeasuring 462 square yards, situated at Achayya Nagar, Chikkadpally, Baghlingampalli, Hyderabad and 3
RC.No.49 of 2019
that Shiv Shanker Reddy died on 17.2.1978 and after his demise his brother G.T. Babu Rao used to look after the property and that G.T. Balaji and Smt. Y. Lakshmi the brother and sister of G.T. Babu Rao filed suit vide bearing O.S.No.1684/1996 before Honourable V Senior Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad for partition against the other brothers and legal heirs of deceased brothers in respect of house bearing No.1-8-597 and 1-8- 599, admeasuring 462 square yards, situated at Achayya Nagar,
Chikkadpally, Baghlingampalli, Hyderabad and preliminary decree passed on 6.3.2006 in the said suit and as confirmed by the Honourable High
Court as per judgment dt.10.12.2010 in CCCA No.193/2006.
3.The petitioners further submitted that the petitioners filed
I.A.No.283/2012 in O.S.No.1684/1996 before Honourable V Senior Civil
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and matter was settled between the
parties therein and accordingly both the parties have entered into compromises and the same have been recorded and thereby passed the compromise final decree for partition suit in the said petition and after the compromise final decree for partition in I.A.No.283/2012, the same was registered as a document No.835/2019 in the office of Sub Registrar 4
RC.No.49 of 2019
Chikkadpally, Hyderabad and that as per compromise final decree for partition, the petitioners became absolute owners of part of H.No.1-8-597 & 1-8-599 admeasuring 86.17 square yards of 775.54 square feet and that the respondent is the tenant of petition schedule premises, fallen to the share of the petitioners and that the respondent was tenant of said premises since last 35 years and the same was obtained from Sri G.T.
Babu Rao’s wife and the present monthly rent is Rs.1500/- exclusive of electricity and water consumption charges to be borne by the tenant and the tenancy is oral and month to month as per English calendar month and as and when the respondent paid rent he used to take endorsement from the petitioner No.3 in the rent note book maintained by the respondent.
4.The petitioners further submitted that the respondent lastly paid rent for the month August 2018, for which the petitioner No.3 endorsed the same in the said rent note book and thereafter the petitioner
No.3 orally requested the respondent to vacate the premises on the ground of personal requirement of the petitioners No.1 and 4, but the respondent failed to vacate the same and stopped paying the monthly rent from 5
RC.No.49 of 2019
September 2018 onwards inspite of repeated oral demands made by the petitioner No.3 and the respondent intentionally and willfully with-held the monthly rents and due of arrears of rent from September 2018 to February 2019 for six months @ Rs.1500/- per month amounting to Rs.9000/-.
5.The petitioners further submitted that the respondent committed act of waste which impaired materially the value and utility of petition schedule premises and that the persons of respondent have caused damage to the walls, roof, flooring in the petition schedule premises and as the respondent is not maintain the petition schedule premises, due to which caused damage to the petition schedule premises.
The petitioners further submitted that the petitioner No.4 is residing in
Bangalore in a rented house and she has no sufficient means to survive in
Bangalore, as such the petitioner No.3 intend to shift her residence from
Bangalore to petition schedule premises and adjoining premises which is under the occupation of another tenant by name G. Rajeshwari and that the petitioner No.4 along with petitioner No.1 intends to reside in the above said two portions and that the petition schedule premises along with adjoining premises is suitable and convenient for residential purpose and 6
RC.No.49 of 2019
that the petitioner No.4 issued a notice dt.21.11.2018 to the respondent demanding to vacate the petition schedule premises for their bonafide requirement and having receipt of the said notice, the respondent neither vacated the premises nor paying the monthly rents and also failed to issue any reply to that effect. The petitioners made oral demands as well as in writing, but the respondent failed to vacate the petition schedule premises.
6.The petitioners further submitted that the petition schedule premises is more than 65 years old and the building has become dangerous to the life of the public in general and the occupants of the premises and the entire building may collapse at any time and that the petitioners are financially sound to invest required amount for demolition and reconstruction of the building on their share of house and the petition schedule premises is reasonably and bonafidely required by the petitioners for immediate purpose of demolition, as such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished for the residence of petitioners No.1 and 4 and that they are not under the obligation to give an undertaking to deliver possession of newly constructed premises to the respondent and that they filed cases 7
RC.No.49 of 2019
against the other tenant occupying the other portions of the property in the building in which the petition schedule premises is part and parcel for eviction on the similar grounds. Hence, this petition.
7.The respondent filed counter, denying the petition averments by stating that as the respondent is a Government employee, as such the rent control case is not maintainable against him and that the petitioners are put to strict proof of their relationship with the original owner of the petition schedule premises and that neither this respondent nor any of the other respondents are not made as parties to the alleged partition suit goes to show that the petitioners are not speaking the truth and that the area of the entire house as mentioned is incorrect and there is no devolution of the title in favour of the petitioners and that there is no relationship of landlords and tenant existed between the petitioners and respondent and that the respondent is staying in portion of premises bearing No.1-8-597 having constructed in his own name, hence the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground.
8
RC.No.49 of 2019
8.The respondent further submitted that the petition schedule premises does not show any area in the schedule and he denied that an area of 86.17 square yards is in his occupation and that he is in occupation of larger extent in the petition schedule premises since more than 50 years and he never paid rents either to petitioners or anybody else claiming on their behalf and there was no property tax in respect of petition schedule premises, in fact recently the property tax appears to have been paid by some persons on behalf of petitioners and property tax stands in the name of Smt. G. Gouramma which clearly goes to show that the petitioners are not the owners of petition schedule premises and there is no clarity as to who is the owner of the same.
9.The respondent further submitted that the question of ever committing default in payment of rents does not arise and that the respondent has not committed any act of waste and has been properly maintaining in neat and good condition under his occupation and that the respondent has got perfected his title over not only the premises shown as petition schedule property, but also portion of adjacent portion. The respondent denies that the petitioner No.4 is residing in a rented premises 9
RC.No.49 of 2019
in Bangalore and that only for the purpose of setting up the ground for eviction of the respondent and that the petitioner No.4 never orally demanded the respondent to vacate the petition schedule premises. The respondent further submitted that the petitioners cannot demolish the petition schedule premises or reconstruct the same as they do not have any right, title or interest over the same and they are seeking demolition of the same only with a view to evict the respondent from the petition schedule premises by hook or crook with an oblique motive and that the respondent has been residing in the petition schedule premises for the last more than 50 years without paying rents to any one and he has perfected his title over and upon the entire property by way of adverse possession and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
10.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner No.1 examined herself is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On the other hand, the respondent himself is examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8.
11. Heard both the learned counsel.
10
RC.No.49 of 2019
12.To consider the rival contentions of both the parties, the following points that arose for consideration are:
(1) Whether there is any jural relationship of landlords and tenant between the petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises and whether the denial of title of the petitioner by the respondent in respect of petition schedule premises is bonafide or not??
(2) Whether the respondent has committed willful default in payment of rents from September 2018 to February 2019 @ Rs.1500/- for a period of 9 months @ Rs.1500/- per month, amounting to Rs.9,000/- in respect of petition schedule premises?
(3)Whether the petitioners are entitled for eviction of the respondent for dismantling the petition schedule premises which is in dilapidated condition and for reconstruction and redeliver the possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondent?
(4)Whether the respondent has committed act of waste in respect of petition schedule premises?
(5)Whether the requirement of petition schedule premises by the petitioners is bonafide?
(6)To what relief?
P O I N T No.1:- 11
RC.No.49 of 2019
13. The contention of the petitioners is that as per compromise final decree for partition in I.A.No.283/2012 in O.S.No.1684/1996 before
Honourable V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the
petitioners became absolute owners of part of H.No.1-8-597 & 1-8-599 admeasuring 86.17 square yards of 775.54 square feet and that the respondent is the tenant of petition schedule premises, fallen to the share of the petitioners and that the respondent was tenant of said premises since last 35 years and the same was obtained from Sri G.T. Babu Rao’s wife and the present monthly rent is Rs.1500/- exclusive of electricity and water consumption charges to be borne by the tenant and the tenancy is oral and month to month as per English calendar month and as and when the respondent paid rent he used to take endorsement from the petitioner
No.3 in the rent note book maintained by the respondent.
14.On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that there is no jural relationship of lanlords and tenant between the petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises and that the respondent is staying in portion of premises bearing No.1-8-597 having constructed in his own name.
12
RC.No.49 of 2019
15.Whenever there is a dispute with regard to jural relationship, the burden lies on the petitioners/landlords to establish that there is jural relationship between the petitioners and respondent as landlords and tenant in respect of petition schedule premises.
16. To prove the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.
17. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of registered compromise final decree for partition suit in I.A.No.238/2012 in O.S.No.1648 of 1996 dt.8.10.2018 on the file of Hon’ble V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad. Ex.P2 is the sketch plan in respect of petition schedule premises. Ex.P3 is the office copy of legal notice dt.21.11.2018. Ex.P4 is the original postal receipt dt.21.11.2018. Ex.P5 is the original postal acknowledgment card dt.3.12.2018. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of sale deed dt.5.12.1996 along with transaction in English. Ex.P7 is the property tax special notice new assessment dt.25.1.2020. Ex.P8 is the 13
RC.No.49 of 2019
property tax payment receipt dt.27.1.2020. Ex.P9 is the encumbrance certificate.
18. On the other hand, the respondent himself is examined as
RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8.
19. Ex.R.1 is the circular received through post in the address 1- 8-597 dt.23.9.1991. Ex.R.2 is the driving license issued by RTA
Hyderabad dt.3.1.1995. Ex.R.3 is the identification card TSRTC dt.11.8.2020. Ex.R.4 is the TSSPDSL electricity bill along with payment receipt dt.21.11.2022. Ex.R.5 is the LIC policy receipt dt.28.7.1995.
Ex.R.6 is the ration card dt.26.2.2006. Ex.R.7 is the election commission of India identity card dt.29.6.2003 and Ex.R.8 is the rough sketch plan of the petition schedule premises.
20.The learned counsel for the respondent cross examined PW.1 and could elicit the following:
“The original owner by name Shiva Shankar died in the year 1978. At the time of death of Shiv a Shankar, the respondent was the tenant. At the time of filing of the partition suit in O.S.No.1684 of 1996 the tenants are in occupation of petition schedule property. The tenant Govinda 14
RC.No.49 of 2019
Raju occupied with three rooms and another by name Rajeshwari occupied one room. It is true that during the rainy seasons the respondent has carried out some repairs to the petition schedule property”.
21.Further the learned counsel for the petitioners cross examined
RW.1 and could elicit the following:
“It is true that I have not filed any reply notice before this
Hon’ble court to show that I have issued a reply to notice under Ex.P3. I
do not know the filing of the partition suit by the family members of Shiv Shankar in respect of petition schedule property and adjoining property vide O.S.No.1684/1996 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is true that the notice issued by the petitioners under Ex.P3 is mentioned that they are acquired the petition schedule property by partition in O.S.No.1684/1996 as per the decree dt.23.10.2018. After receipt of the Ex.P1 the compromise final decree in partition suit vide
O.S.No.1684/1996 till today I have not made any enquiry with regard to
the said suit. I do not know the property tax in respect of petition schedule property is being paid by the petitioners herein. I do not know whether Shiv Shankar purchased the petition schedule building by registered sale deed No.3539/1966. It is true that the petitioners herein mutated their names in the municipal department in respect of petition schedule property on 25.1.2020 and municipal authority allotted a new number vice 1-8-597/A under Ex.P7. We have not filed any objections
before the GHMC in respect of Ex.P7 ”.
22.The contention of the petitioners is that late Shiv Shankar, who is bachelor was the owner of house bearing No.1-8-597 and 1-8-599 admeasuring 462 square yards situated at Achayya Nagar, Chikkadpally,
Baghlingampally, Hyderabad and after his demise Sri G.T. Babu Rao, who 15
RC.No.49 of 2019
is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 and 4 used to look after the said property and that the brother and sister of said G.T.
Babu Rao filed suit vide O.S.No.1684/1996 before the Honourable V
Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for partition against the
other brothers and legal heirs of deceased brothers in respect of house bearing No.1-8-597 and 1-8-599, admeasuring 462 square yards, situated at Achayya Nagar, Chikkadpally, Baghlingampalli, Hyderabad and preliminary decree dt.6.3.2006 in the said suit and as confirmed by the
Honourable High Court as per judgment dt.10.12.2010 in CCCA
No.193/2006.
23.Though the respondent denied about the jural relationship between himself and the petitioners, but he has not filed any documents to disprove the contention of the petitioners that the petition schedule premises not fell into the share of petitioners under Ex.P1. Further he admitted about mutation and petitioners name entered as owners by municipal authorities by allotting new house number and no objection raised by him before municipal authorities.
16
RC.No.49 of 2019
24.On perusal of Ex.P1 certified copy of registered compromise final decree for partition suit in I.A.No.238/2012 in O.S.No.1648/1996 dt.8.10.2018 on the file of Hon’ble V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, the same was filed by the petitioners No.1 to 3 and others against one G.T. Balaji @ Baioji and others in respect of property bearing
H.No.1-8-597 and 1-8-599 situated at Achayya Nagar, Chikkadpally,
Hyderabad admeasuring 462 square yards is agreed to be divided into five parts i.e., A, B, C, D & E in which the petition schedule property is also included and that A Schedule property admeasuring 86.17 square yards or 75.54 square feet is allotted to the legal representatives of G.T. Babu Rao i.e., G. Shantha Bai(petitioner No.1 herein), G. Keshar(petitioner No.2 herein), G. Mahesh(petitioner No.3 herein) and Smt. Sushma(Petitioner
No.4 herein). Further on perusal of Ex.P6 certified copy of sale deed dt.5.12.1996 along with translation in English, one Gaddam Gauramma being the owner is in possession of house bearing No.1-8-597 208.16 square yards situated at Azamabad, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad sold the same for a total sale consideration of Rs.700/- of Indian currency, half of which amount is calculated to Rs.350/- of the same currency in favour of
Mr. Shiv Shankar Tukoji. During the course of cross examination, RW.1 17
RC.No.49 of 2019
stated that he does not know from whom his father obtained the petition schedule premises on rent and again says that his father obtained the petition schedule premises from one Gowramma and he does not have any idea that the said Gowramma sold the petition schedule property building to one Shiva Shankar or not under Ex.P6. Further Ex.P1 reveals that the petition schedule premises was allotted to the legal representatives of G.T.
Babu Rao i.e., the petitioners No.1 to 4 herein and as per Ex.P1, the petitioners herein are the owners of the petition schedule premises.
25.Further RW.1 admitted during the course of his cross examination that prior to filing of the present RC, the petitioner got issued notice under Ex.P3 and the same was received and that he has not filed any reply notice and further admitted that under Ex.P3, the petitioner
No.4 requested him to vacate and handover the possession of petition schedule property under his occupation within 15 days of receipt of notice.
On perusal of Ex.P3 reveals that the petitioner No.4 issued the said notice to the respondent herein by stating that she acquired the petition schedule premises by partition in O.S.No.1684/1996 along with her mother and brothers and after she became the co-owner of the said property, herself 18
RC.No.49 of 2019
and other family members have informed to the respondent about their ownership and demanded respondent to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the said property and that above said residential premises which is in occupation of respondent is in dilapidated condition and the same to demolish and construct the house.
26.Though the respondent denied about the jural relationship between himself and the petitioners, but after receipt of Ex.P3 legal notice, the respondent has not issued any reply notice to that effect. Further the respondent admitted that he is the tenant in respect of petition schedule premises. During the course of cross examination RW.1 also admitted that
G. Gowramma was the original owner of petition schedule building and his father was tenant in respect of petition schedule property and that he does not know whether said G. Gowramma sold the petition schedule property building to Shiva Shankar through registered sale deed under Ex.P6.
27. Further the respondent admitted that his father was the tenant in respect of petition schedule premises and his father obtained electricity connection in the year 1989 in the name of respondent in 19
RC.No.49 of 2019
respect of petition schedule premises and further he admitted that he is not the owner of the petition schedule property and that he never verified in the registration office with regarding to the change of ownership in respect of petition schedule property building from G. Gowramma to Shiva
Shanker under Ex.P6. It clearly reveals that respondent residing in petition schedule premises and he is not owner of petition schedule premises and petitioners’ name entered by municipal authorities in mutation proceedings.
28.Moreover if we look into the definition of landlord under 2(vi) of
RC Act.
Section 2(vi) of the Act defines landlord as hereunder:
“Landlord” means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant;
Explanation:- A tenant who sub-lets a building shall be deemed to be a landlord within the meaning of this Act relation in to the subtenant”.
29.The definition of landlord under the Act is very wide and comprehensive and according to the definition, even a person who is 20
RC.No.49 of 2019
entitled to receive rent on his behalf or others or as agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver appointed by the court would also fall within the definition of landlord.
30. Further the word tenant is defined under Section 2(ix) of the
Act defines tenant as hereunder:
“Tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son or daughter, of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of tenant’s family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building, by its tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter-house or of rents for shops has been framed out or leased by a local authority”.
31.In view of the definition of the word landlord and tenant, a person who is entitled to receive the rent for a building where on his own account on or on behalf of himself or on behalf of third party and in person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building is tenant.
Therefore, the court has to decide whether there is subsisting jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties initially.
21
RC.No.49 of 2019
32. Though respondent denied the jural relationship between himself and the petitioners as tenant and landlords in respect of petition schedule premises, but failed to prove that he is not the tenant in respect of petition schedule premises. His evidence reveals that he is residing in petition schedule premises as tenant and he is not the owner of petition schedule premises.
33. Further, the documents under Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 clearly established that the petitioners comes under the definition of landlord and respondent comes under the definition of tenant and that the jural relationship between the petitioners and respondent as landlords and tenant subsists, as such the denial of title by the respondent is not bonafide, but malafide.
34. For which this court relied on the following decisions:
i.In Englesh Prasad Vs. N. Shravan Kumar reported in 2006(1) ALD 54, wherein it was held that:
“Conduct of tenant to be taken into consideration and no reply given to notice issued for arrears of rent and to vacate premises and except denying title, no acceptable evidence placed before court and committed willful default for sufficiently long time, 22
RC.No.49 of 2019
pleadings adverse possession and clear evidence available on record relating to title and PW.2 deposed in detail how his family requires premises bonafidely since large family depends on him and payment of tax, enjoyment and title deeds clearly go to show that the property belongs to landlord’s family and object of tenant in taking a vague plea of adverse possession and denying landlords title appears to be with a view to delay proceedings and drive them to a civil court to have prolonged litigation and tenant’s denial, not bonafide one but a malafide denial of title”.
ii. In M/s Burugu Mahadev and Sons Vs. Sirigiri
Narsing Rao reported in AIR 2016 SC 433, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that:
“Denial of title and concluded that concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governs by Rent Control Act has to distinguished from, as one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a relative term, the import where of depends on the context it is used in the Rent Control legislation the landlord is said to be the owner if he is entitled in his own legal right, has distinguished from, for and on behalf of someone else to evict the tenant and then to retain control, hold and use the premises for himself. What may suffice and hold could as proof of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation probably may or may not be enough to successfully sustain a claim for a ownership in a title suit”.
35. In the light of above said decisions, the person who is claiming eviction of the tenant need not prove title as in title suit, proof of his entitlement to recover rent from tenant is sufficient to order eviction of the tenant from the premises in occupation.
23
RC.No.49 of 2019
36. Though the respondent denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, but he failed to prove the same by adducing oral and documentary evidence to that effect and also failed to cross examine PW.1 on the said aspect that he is not the tenant in respect of petition schedule premises.
37. In view of the above said discussion, this court is of the opinion that there is jural relationship of landlords and tenant in between petitioners and respondent and that the denial of title of petitioners by the respondent is malafide. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.
P O I N T No.2:-
38.The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent lastly paid rent for the month of August 2018, for which the petitioner No.3 endorsed the same in rent note book and thereafter the petitioner No.3 orally requested the respondent to vacate the premises on the ground of personal requirement of the petitioners No.1 and 4, but the respondent 24
RC.No.49 of 2019
failed to vacate the same and stopped paying the monthly rent from
September 2018 onwards inspite of repeated oral demands made by the petitioner No.3 and intentionally and willfully with-held the monthly rents and due of arrears of rent from September 2018 to February 2019 for six months @ Rs.1500/- per month amounting to Rs.9000/-.
39.On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that there is no jural relationship of landlords and tenant between the petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises, as such the question of ever committing default in payment of rents by the respondent does not arise.
40.Whenever the willful default ground pleaded by the landlord, the burden lies on the tenant to establish that he has not committed any willful default in payment of rent. In the present case also the burden lies on the respondent to establish that he has not committed any willful default in payment of rent to the petitioners in respect of petition schedule premises.
25
RC.No.49 of 2019
41. Though the respondent has denied the jural relationship of landlords and tenant in between the petitioners and himself, as such question of committing default by him does not arise, but to prove the said contention, the respondent did not choose to cross examine PW.1 on the said aspect that he has not committed any willful default in payment of monthly rent as he is not residing as tenant in petition schedule premises.
As stated supra in point No.1, there is a jural relationship of landlords and tenant between the petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises.
42. In view of the discussion in point No.1, that there is jural relationship between the petitioners and respondent as landlords and tenant in respect of the petition schedule property.
43.The learned counsel for the petitioners cross examined RW.1 and could elicit the following:
“According to me since long time no one is claiming the rent including the petitioner even after filing this RC. It is true that the present RC is filed by the petitioners on the ground of willful default and payment of rent claiming arrears of rent from September 2018 to February 2019 at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month and act of waste and bonafide personal requirement. It is true that even after filing the present RC I have not paid any rents to the 26
RC.No.49 of 2019
petitioners, therefore the petitioners filed application U/s.11(1) vide I.A.No.196/2019”.
44.In view of the admissions of RW.1 during the course of his cross examination, this court is of the opinion that the respondent has not paid the rents from September 2018 onwards to the petitioners and even after filing of RC by the petitioners also, the respondent has not paid the rents in respect of the petition schedule premises, as such the respondent has committed willful default in payment of rents to the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule premises. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.
P O I N T S No.3 and 4:-
45. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent committed act of waste which impaired materially the value and utility of petition schedule premises and that the persons of respondent have caused damage to the walls, roof, flooring in the petition schedule premises and as the respondent is not maintain the petition schedule premises, due to which caused damage to the petition schedule premises.
27
RC.No.49 of 2019
46.The further contention of the petitioners is that the petition schedule premises is more than 65 years old and the building has become dangerous to the life of the public in general and the occupants of the premises and the entire building may collapse at any time and that the petitioners are financially sound to invest required amount for demolition and reconstruction of the building on their share of house and the petition schedule premises is reasonably and bonafidely required by the petitioners for immediate purpose of demolition, as such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished for the residence of petitioners No.1 and 4 and that they are not under the obligation to give an undertaking to deliver possession of newly constructed premises to the respondent
47.On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that he has not committed any act of waste and has been properly maintaining in neat and good condition under his occupation and that the petitioners cannot demolish the petition schedule premises or reconstruct the same as they do not have any right, title or interest over the same and they are seeking demolition of the same only with a view to evict the respondent 28
RC.No.49 of 2019
from the petition schedule premises by hook or crook with an oblique motive and that the respondent has been residing in the petition schedule premises for the last more than 50 years without paying rents to any one and he has perfected his title over and upon the entire property by way of adverse possession.
48.Whenever the ground of reconstruction of petition schedule premises and also the act of waste ground pleaded by the landlord, the burden lies on the landlord to establish the same. In the present case also the burden lies on the petitioners to establish that the petition schedule premises is in condition for reconstruction and that the respondent has committed act of waste in respect of petition schedule premises.
49.During the course of cross examination, RW.1 admitted that under Ex.R.4 the consumed electricity units shown as zero. On perusal of
Ex.R.4 electricity bill along with payment receipt dt.7.11.2022 shows the consumption of units is shown as zero, as such this court is of the opinion that the respondent is not residing in the petition schedule premises and kept the same under lock and also not maintaining the petition schedule 29
RC.No.49 of 2019
premises properly, as such the consumption of units is showing zero under
Ex.R.4, which supports the contention of the petitioners that the respondent is not residing in the petition schedule premises, where the learned counsel for the petitioners has given a suggestion during the course of cross examination of RW.1 that the respondent is not residing in petition schedule premises. Though RW.1 denied the above said suggestion and stated that the condition of the petition schedule premises is in good condition. Further the respondent in his counter stated that he constructed the petition schedule premises in his own name, but during the course of his cross examination, RW.1 admitted that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that he constructed the petition schedule property with his funds and that the statement with regard to construction of petition schedule property by himself at para NO.4 of his counter is false.
50.Hence, in view of the above said discussion, this court is of the opinion that there is no necessity of re-delivery of possession of petition schedule premises to the respondent by the petitioners as the respondent is not residing in the petition schedule premises which proves the same 30
RC.No.49 of 2019
under Ex.R.4 electricity bill showing the consumption of electricity bill as zero. Further due to non residing of respondent in the petition schedule premises, the condition of the said premises is in damaged condition, as such the respondent has committed act of waste in respect of petition schedule premises by not residing in it. Accordingly, these points are answered with regarding condition of the petition schedule premises.
P O I N T No.5:-
51.The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioner No.4 is residing in Bangalore in a rented house and she has no sufficient means to survive in Bangalore, as such intend to shift her residence from Bangalore to petition schedule premises and adjoining premises which is under the occupation of another tenant by name G. Rajeshwari and that the petitioner No.4 along with petitioner No.1 intends to reside in the above said two portions and that the petition schedule premises along with adjoining premises is suitable and convenient for residential purpose and that the petitioner No.4 issued a notice dt.21.11.2018 to the respondent demanding to vacate the petition schedule premises for their bonafide 31
RC.No.49 of 2019
requirement and having receipt of the said notice, the respondent neither vacated the premises nor paying the monthly rents and also failed to issue any reply to that effect. The further contention of the petitioners is that the petition schedule premises is more than 65 years old and the building has become dangerous to the life of the public in general and the occupants of the premises and the entire building may collapse at any time and the petition schedule premises is reasonably and bonafidely required by the petitioners for immediate purpose of demolition, as such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished for the residence of petitioners No.1 and 4 and that they are not under the obligation to give an undertaking to deliver possession of newly constructed premises to the respondent and that they filed cases against the other tenant occupying the other portions of the property in the building in which the petition schedule premises is part and parcel for eviction on the similar grounds.
52.On the other hand, the respondent denies that the petitioner
No.4 is residing in a rented premises in Bangalore and that only for the purpose of setting up the ground for eviction of the respondent and that 32
RC.No.49 of 2019
the petitioner No.4 never orally demanded the respondent to vacate the petition schedule premises and that the petitioners cannot demolish the petition schedule premises or reconstruct the same as they do not have any right, title or interest over the same and they are seeking demolition of the same only with a view to evict the respondent from the petition schedule premises by hook or crook with an oblique motive.
53.Admittedly, whenever the bonafide requirement ground is pleaded, the burden of proof lies on the petitioners to establish that the requirement of the petition schedule premises by the petitioners is bonafide one.
54. Though the respondent cross examined PW.1 at length, but could not elicit that the petitioner is having other non residential premises in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and he could not elicit anything in his favour. Except the bald allegation that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioners and respondent, the respondent did not choose to file single paper in support of his contention. Further the respondent also failed to file any document to 33
RC.No.49 of 2019
show that petitioners are having any other non residential property occupied by them in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.
55. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioner No.4 intend to shift her residence from Bangalore to petition schedule premises and adjoining premises which is under the occupation of another tenant by name G. Rajeshwari and that the petitioner No.4 along with petitioner No.1 intends to reside in the above said two portions. Further the learned counsel for respondent could not elicit from the cross examination of PW.1 that the petitioners have any alternative accommodation or petitioners does not bonafidely require the petition schedule property for their own purpose. Further the petitioner No.1 is aged about 68 years at the time of filing of the present RC which was filed on 1.4.2019 and she being a senior citizen is entitled for eviction of the respondent under 10-C of RC
Act.
56. For which this court also relied on a decision in Krishna
Kumar Rastogi Vs. Sumitra Devi reported in AIR 2014 SC 3635 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that 34
RC.No.49 of 2019
“It is the choice of the landlord to choose the place for
the business which is most suitable for him and he has
complete freedom in the matter and the landlord is the
best judge of his requirement and courts have no
concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what
manner he should live”.
57. In view of the above said discussion and in the light of the above said decision, it can be concluded that the requirement of petitioners in respect of petition schedule premises is bonafide requirement and the benefits caused to landlords would over weigh the hardship caused to tenant. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the petitioners.
P O I N T No.6:-
58. Since the points No.1 to 5 are answered in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for.
59. In the result, the petition is allowed without costs and the respondent is directed to vacate the petition schedule premises and hand over the physical, vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the petitioners within two months from the date of the order. In case of 35
RC.No.49 of 2019
failure, the petitioners are at liberty to evict the respondent by following the due process of law.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 5th day of October, 2023.
FAC IV ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for
Petitioners Respondent:
PW.1: G. Shantha Bai RW1: K.L. Govinda Raju
Documents marked for
Petitioners:-
Ex.P1: Certified copy of registered compromise final decree for partition suit in I.A.No.238/2012 in O.S.No.1648 of 1996 dt.8.10.2018 on the file of
Hon’ble V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Ex.P2: Sketch plan in respect of petition schedule premises. Ex.P3: Office copy of legal notice dt.21.11.2018. Ex.P4: Original postal receipt dt.21.11.2018. Ex.P5: Original postal acknowledgment card dt.3.12.2018. Ex.P6: Certified copy of sale deed dt.5.12.1996 along with transaction in English. Ex.P7: Property tax special notice new assessment dt.25.1.2020. Ex.P8: Property tax payment receipt dt.27.1.2020. Ex.P9: Encumbrance certificate.
36
RC.No.49 of 2019
For Respondent:
Ex.R.1: Circular received through post in the address 1-8-597 dt.23.9.1991. Ex.R.2: Driving license issued by RTA Hyderabad dt.3.1.1995. Ex.R.3: Identification card TSRTC dt.11.8.2020. Ex.R.4: TSSPDSL electricity bill along with payment receipt dt.21.11.2022. Ex.R.5: LIC policy receipt dt.28.7.1995. Ex.R.6: Ration card dt.26.2.2006. Ex.R.7: Election commission of India identity card dt.29.6.2003 Ex.R.8: Rough sketch plan of the petition schedule premises.
FAC IV ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY
All that three rooms forming part of house bearing Municipal No.1-8- 597 & 1-8-599, situated at Achayya Nagar, Baghlingampally, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad and bounded by:
North:Neighbours house South:Part of H.No.1-8-597 & 1-8-599 East:Partition of G.T. Ganpath Rao & Common passage West:Neighbours House.
FAC IV ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
37
RC.No.49 of 2019
38
RC.No.49 of 2019
39
RC.No.49 of 2019
RC.No.145 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Present: T. Nagarani,
Principal Rent Controller,
Hyderabad. FAC IV Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2023.
R.C.No.145 of 2019
Between:
1. Komma Santosh Kumar S/o. Komma Prabhakar, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business,
2. Anaganti Mounika, W/o. Komma Santosh Kumar, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Business,
Both are R/o.H.No.13-1-175/A, Snehapuri Colony, Moti Nagar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
A n d
Nadera Begum W/o. Mohd Layeeq, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Household, H.No.8-3-166/C/8, Erragadda, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Anand Kumar, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri Mohd Shoeb Ali Arshad, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following:
2
RC.No.145 of 2019
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(i)(a), 10(3)(a)(i)(b) and 10(3)(C) of Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act seeking eviction of respondent in respect of all that portion of house bearing municipal No.8-3-166/C/8, situated at
Erragadda, Hyderabad.
2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-
The petitioners purchased the petition schedule property under registered sale deed vide document No. 4426/2019 dt: 08.07.2019 from its previous owner Liaquath Ali Khan in which the respondent is residing as a tenant in the portion of House bearing No.8-3-166/C/8.
After the purchase both petitioners and their vendor issued attorney notice
dt:19.08.2019 through registered post along with acknowledgment to
respondent individually asking the respondent to pay future rent of the petition schedule property of rent of Rs.300/- per month from August 2019 onwards to the petitioners herein, but the respondent has not paid the rent and committed default in paying the rent. After receipt of attornment notice also failed to pay the rent. Petitioners purchased the 3
RC.No.145 of 2019
petition schedule property with an intention to live in petition schedule property for convenience to run the business as petitioners running a kirana and general stores under the name and style of Varahi Traders is situated beside the petition schedule property, and they require petition schedule property as a bonafide requirement. Petitioners required the petition schedule property to reside in the petition schedule property to run the shop which is already owned by the petitioners for their convenience as their bonafide requirement and the respondent failed to pay the rent of August 2019 as such the respondents became the defaulters inspite of the attornment notices dt;19.8.2019 by both petitioners and their vendor as such petitioner is liable to evicted from the petition schedule property on both the grounds, bonafide requirement and default of rent. Hence, this petition.
3.The respondent filed counter, denying the petition averments by stating that respondent is not a tenant in petition schedule property of petitioner or Liaquath Ali Khan who is claiming to be a previous owner in respect of petition schedule property. Respondent is not aware about any sale transaction between the petitioner and said Liaquath Ali Khan under 4
RC.No.145 of 2019
the registered sale deed document No.4426/2019 dt:08.07.2019. Further submitted that respondent is absolute owner and peaceful possessor of house bearing M.No.8-3-166/C/8/A, admeasuring 45.97 Sq.yards by virtue of unregistered sale deed dt:15.04.2010 duly notarized from her father Mohammed Sardar who acquired the same by virtue of unregistered gift settlement deed dt: 25.11.2002, duly notarized from his brother
Mr. Sheik Hyder. Respondent is continuously residing in the petition schedule property from the date of acquiring the property. Further it is submitted by the respondent that Sheik Hyder was the original owner of the property house bearing M.No.8-3-166/C/8 admeasuring 106.00 yards out of which portion of property house bearing M.no.8-3-166/C/8 admeasuring 45.97 Sq.yards gifted to Mohammed Sardar who is the father of respondent and handed over the peaceful possession since then father of respondent was in the possession of afore said property from the date of gift i.e., 25.11.2002 to till handing over the property to respondent on 15.04.2010 and from there onwards respondent is in continuous possession of the property house bearing No.8-3-166/C/8/A which got allotted the new House bearing No. by her father after acquiring the property under unregistered gift deed and assessed the property and also 5
RC.No.145 of 2019
got new electricity connection meter to new assessed house number and was regularly paying the consumption charges to the electricity department and respondent is in continuous possession with out any interference and hindrance from anybody. And petition schedule property and respondent presently residing property house bearing number are different and not the same, previously several times petitioner and one
Liaquath Ali Khan tried to grab the respondent property i.e., 8-3-166/C/8/A by showing as petition schedule property but failed in their attempt and respondent also filed a police complaint against petitioner and Liaquath Ali Khan for trespass and harassment and concerned police warned them not to harass the respondent. Petitioner not aware about any transaction in respect of petition schedule property and respondent is not a tenant to petition schedule property House bearing no.8-3-166/C/8/A and respondent never received any attornment notice or other such notices issued by the petitioners and said alleged notices dt:19.08.2019 were managed by the petitioner and Liaquath Ali khan it should never reach the respondents and for their malafide ends.
Respondent is no where connected with the petition schedule property.
Petitioners are running kirana and general stores beside petition schedule 6
RC.No.145 of 2019
property and shifting to petition schedule property is bonafide requirement of petitioners and respondent failed to pay the rent inspite of the attorney notices are created stories to grab the property of respondent and prays the court to dismiss the petition.
4.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner No.1 examined as examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On the other hand, the respondent herself is examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R8.
5. Heard both the learned counsel.
6.To consider the rival contentions of both the parties, the following points that arose for consideration are:
(1) Whether there is any jural relationship of landlords and tenant between the petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises and whether the denial of title of the petitioners by the respondent in respect of petition schedule premises is bonafide or not??
(2) Whether the respondent has committed willful default in payment of rents from August, 2019 onwards @ Rs.3000/- in respect of petition schedule premises?
(3)Whether the requirement of petition schedule premises by the petitioners is bonafide?
7
RC.No.145 of 2019
(4)To what relief?
P O I N T No.1:-
7. The contention of the petitioners is that they have purchased the petition schedule property from its previous owner Mr. Liaquath Ali khanunder registered sale deed vide document No.4426/2019
dt:08.07.2019 in which the respondent residing as tenant. Petitioners
purchase the petition schedule property to run their shop conveniently by residing at petition schedule property as said shop is situated beside the petition schedule property and for the bonafide requirement they have purchased petition schedule property. After the purchase petitioners along with their vendor issued attornment notices dt:19.08.2019 to the respondent to pay the rent of Rs.3000/- for the month of August 2019 to the petitioners herein.
8.On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that she is not the tenant of petition schedule property and she is no where connected with the petition schedule property. Where respondent residing in a house bearing No.8-3-166/C/8/A as owner and possessor of the 8
RC.No.145 of 2019
property under unregistered gift deed which is notarize by father of respondent where father of respondent acquired the same under unregistered gift deed which notarize by the brother of respondent father
Sheik Hyder who was the absolute owner over the property house bearing
No.8-3-166/C/8 admeasuring 106.00 Sq.yards out of which 45.97 Square
Yards gifted to her father by said original owner Sheik Hyder and her father got allotted new house Number 8-3-166/C/8/A after assessment of the property, they are not the tenants of petition schedule property, petitioner and one Mr. Liaquath Ali khan who claimed himself as previous owner of petition schedule property tried to grab the respondent property house bearing No.8-3-166/C/8/A by stating themselves as owners of petition schedule property bearing no.8-3-166/C/8 there is no jural relationship of landlords and tenant between the petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises and that the respondent is staying in portion of premises bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8/A not in petition schedule property.
9. Whenever there is a dispute with regard to jural relationship, the burden lies on the petitioners/landlords to establish that there is jural 9
RC.No.145 of 2019
relationship between the petitioners and respondent as landlords and tenant in respect of petition schedule premises.
10. To prove the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 filed his chief examination affidavit as PW.1 and reiterated the contents of petition in his chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6
11. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of sale deed dt.8.7.2019. Ex.P2 is the office copy of attornment notice dt.19.8.2019. Ex.P3 is the office copy of attornment notice dt.19.8.2019. Ex.P4 is the postal receipts of registered post acknowledgment due (2 in number) dt.19.8.2019. Ex.P5 is the acknowledgment cards received by the respondent (2 in number) dt.20.8.2019 and Ex.P6 is the original electricity bill dt.9.9.2019.
12.On the other hand, the respondent filed her chief examination as RW.1 and reiterated the contents of counter in her chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.10.
10
RC.No.145 of 2019
13.Ex.R.1 is the original adhar card of the respondent. Ex.R.2 is the original driving license. Ex.R.3 is the original gas passbook. Ex.R.4 is the photostat copies of gas receipts(2) marked with the consent of counsel
for petitioner subject to filing of original receipts at the time of cross
examination. Ex.R5 is the original electricity bill dt.9.3.2023. Ex.R.6 is the original SSC certificate dt.10.6.1999. Ex.R.7 is the original passport.
Ex.R.8 is the original Aadhar card. Ex.R.9 is the original receipt of acknowledgment of police department dt.24.7.2019 and Ex.R10 is the original bank passbook.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner cross examined RW1 and could elicit the following:
“it is true as per my counter and chief affidavit sheik hyder is previous owner of petition schedule property. We have filed the gift deed in the court. I do not know whether the petitioners purchased the petition schedule property from Mr. Liaquath Ali khan and Mohammed Akram in the year 2019 through Ex.P1. It is true Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 are the gas book and gas receipts having the address pertains to petition schedule property. On confrontation of Ex.R4 witness admits that address column it is mentioned as separate tenant, witness adds that for providing two connections at one house used to mention as separate tenant for separate connection. We have not filed any registered document to show that we are the owners of petition schedule property. It is true Ex.P5 postal acknowledgment bears my signature as received by me. Ques: Had you given reply to the notice sent to you along with the acknowledgment what do you say? Ans: The acknowledgment is having my signature bu I do not know about the notice asking by you and I 11
RC.No.145 of 2019
have not received any notice. It is true petitioners are running the kirana shop business at petition schedule property in one mulgi. We have not paid any rent to petitioners after purchasing of petition schedule property by them and after received notice by me which sent by the petitioners to vacate the petition schedule property. I do not know whether notary documents have any right or not as well as having electricity bill will not give any right over the petition schedule property’.
15. Further the learned counsel for the respondent cross examined PW1 and could elicit the following:
“ I have purchased the property in the year 2019 from Mr. Liaquath Ali khan. I got acquaintance with Mr. Liaquath Ali khan through broker/agent. It do not know the profession of Mr. Liaquath Ali khan. The extent of psp is 50 Sq.yards. The total extent of petition schedule property is 100 Sq.yards. At the time of the purchase of construction of area of petition schedule property was one mulgi/shop , with two rooms , one room beside the shop and another is upstair to shop. On confrontation of Ex.P1 by the counsel for petitioner and put a question to witness that is any mulgi mentioned in plan by showing plan attested to the sale deed and witness admitted about not mentioning about existing mulgi in said plan. The constructed area of the building is entire 50 Sq.yards land. I cannot say the same in sq.ft. On confrontation of Ex.P1 by the counsel for petitioner and put a question to witness about mentioning built area in Annexure – 1A as 500 Sq.ft A.C.C and 100 Sq.ft R.C.C. by showing the sale deed and witness admitted the same about mentioning about built up area in Annexure – 1A as 500 Sq.ft A.C.C and 100 Sq.ft R.C.C. I do not know when the respondent entered into tenancy with Liaquath Ali Khan into the petition schedule property. Witness adds that at the time of my purchase respondent accepted to vacate the petition schedule property but all of sudden blaming the ownership by respondent. I have not filed any rental agreement deed executed between the Liaquath ali knan and respondent . I do not know the quantum of rent collected by the Liaquath ali khan from respondent. It is true that on 14.10.2019 I have filed this petition by mentioning the cause of action as 12
RC.No.145 of 2019
respondent failed to pay the rents to the petitioners. It is true from the date of my purchase respondent not paid any rent to me. I have not knowledge about payment of rents to my vendor by the respondent or not. It is true that I have not mentioned any details regarding to the tenancy toe the respondent in the chief affidavit. It is true that I have not mentioned any rent details.
16. The contention of the petitioners is that respondent is the tenant in petition schedule property which purchased by the petitioners and the respondent was also the tenant of vendor of the petitioners.
Petitioners purchased the petition schedule property from the previous owner by name Liaquath Ali Khan under a registered sale deed and at the time of his purchase respondent already in petition schedule property as tenant to his vendor. Petitioners also stated that immediately after the purchase petitioners along with their vendor issued attornment letter to the respondent to pay the rents for the month of August 2019 to the petitioners herein as they have purchased the petition schedule property.
But the respondent denied the jural relation ship by stating that she is the owner and possessor over the House bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8/A under a notarize unregistered gift deed from her father and she is no way connected with the petition schedule property which is with House bearing
No.8-3-166/C/8.
13
RC.No.145 of 2019
17.Further respondent stating that petition schedule property and the house in which she residing are different properties. Where the original owner Sheik hyder was the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of property House bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8 admeasuring 106 Sq.yards out of which 45.97 Sq.yards gifted by him under unregistered gift deed to father of respondent by name Mohammed Sardar and father of respondent got allotted to said property House bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8/A and was in continuous possession till the same gifted to the respondent herein under unregistered gift deed. Ex.P1 reveals that petitioners as the owner of petition schedule property as they purchased the same from its previous owner and Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 attornment notices issued by petitioners and their vendor reveals that it was informed to the respondent to pay the rent to petitioners for the month of August 2019 as petition schedule property was purchased by the petitioners. Ex,P5 reveals that said notices were received by the respondent where the acknowledgment bears the signature of the respondent. Ex.P6 electricity bill is in the name of the petitioner
No.2. but Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 nothing reveals that respondent is residing in petition schedule property house bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8 as tenant 14
RC.No.145 of 2019
where Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 filed by the respondent shows that respondent residing in House bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8/A.
18.Though the respondent failed to file any document to show that they are the absolute owners in house bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8/A under oral gift deed but the petitioners also failed to file a single piece of document to that extent to show that respondent residing in petition schedule property by paying monthly rent previously to the vendor of the petitioners. Further it is admitted by the PW1 in his cross examination that he do not know that when the respondent entered into tenancy with liaquath ali knan and did not executed rental deed between liaquath ali khan and respondent and he do not know the quantum of rent collected by liaquyath ali khan from respondent. Further admitted that from the date of his purchase respondent not paid any rent to him and he have no knowledge about payment of rents to his vendor by the respondent or not and he did not mentioned any rent details. Further more his cross examination reveals that the house bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8/A not purchased by him though he stated said house is not in existence but
Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 pertains to Aadhar card, Passport etc., of respondent and 15
RC.No.145 of 2019
her husband reflects the house bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8/A. Entire evidence of PW1 And RW1 and Ex.R1 to R10 reveals that respondent residing in house bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8/A and petition schedule property is not said house number and no document filed by the petitioners to show that respondent residing in petition schedule premises.
Further PW1 evidence reveals that he obtained electricity connection on his name pertains to petition schedule premises after the purchase and changed the same into his name for already existing electricity connection at petition schedule premises which was previously in the name of Sheik
Hyder, but the petitioners herein purchased the petition schedule premises from Liaquath Ali khan and the existing electricity connection to petition schedule premises was not in the name of Liaquath Ali khan. Further the evidence of respondent reveals that said Sheik Hyder was the original owner of house bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8 admeasuring 106 Sq.yards out of which 45.97 Sq.yards gifted to the father of respondent and after the assessment the father of the respondent got allotted the house bearing No.
8-3-166/C/8/A to the property. Further the PW1 evidence reveals that petition schedule premises admeasuring 50 square yards. If it believed that the original petition schedule premises house bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8 16
RC.No.145 of 2019
admeasuring 106 Sq.yards belongs to one Sheik Hyder and out of which to an extent of 45.97 Sq.yards premises got allotted house bearing No. 8-3- 166/C/8/A then there must be two houses with house bearing No. 8-3- 166/C/8 and house bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8/A. As such the respondent residing in house bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8/A but not at petition schedule premises of house bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8. And petitioners failed to file any document to show that respondent residing in petition schedule premises though the respondent admitted in her cross examination that
Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 having address pertaining the petition schedule premises but on perusal Ex.R3 and R4 it reveals that Ex.R3 and R4 are also having the house bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8/A but not petition schedule premises house bearing No. 8-3-166/C/8.
19.Moreover if we look into the definition of landlord under 2(vi) of
RC Act.
Section 2(vi) of the Act defines landlord as hereunder:
“Landlord” means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant; 17
RC.No.145 of 2019
Explanation:- A tenant who sub-lets a building shall be deemed to be a landlord within the meaning of this Act relation in to the subtenant”.
20. The definition of landlord under the Act is very wide and comprehensive and according to the definition, even a person who is entitled to receive rent on his behalf or others or as agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver appointed by the court would also fall within the definition of landlord.
21. Further the word tenant is defined under Section 2(ix) of the
Act defines tenant as hereunder:
“Tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son or daughter, of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of tenant’s family up to the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building, by its tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter-house or of rents for shops has been framed out or leased by a local authority”.
22. In view of the definition of the word landlord and tenant, a person who is entitled to receive the rent for a building where on his own 18
RC.No.145 of 2019
account on or on behalf of himself or on behalf of third party and in person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building is tenant.
Therefore, the court has to decide whether there is subsisting jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties initially.
23. The respondent denied the jural relationship between herself and the petitioners as tenant and landlords in respect of petition schedule premises and the petitioners failed to prove that the respondent is residing in petition schedule premises by paying rents to the vendor of petitioners prior to purchase of petition schedule premises by the petitioners
24.Further, the documents under Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 clearly established that the respondent residing in house bearing No.
8-3-166/C/8/A other than petition schedule premises as such petitioners not comes under the definition of landlord and respondent not comes under the definition of tenant and that the jural relationship between the petitioners and respondent has not established as landlords and tenant subsists in respect of petition schedule premises, as such the denial of title by the respondent is not bonafide, but malafide.
19
RC.No.145 of 2019
25.Hence, in view of the above said discussion, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners failed to establish that there is a jural relationship between the petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises. Accordingly, this point is answered against the petitioners.
P O I N T S No.2 and 3:-
26. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent not paid the rent for the month of August 2019 to the petitioners as such the respondent became defaulter inspite of the attornment notices
dt 19.08.2019 by both petitioners and their vendor. Petitioners purchased
the petition schedule property from its previous owner by name Liaquath
Ali Khan under registered sale deed vide document number 4426/2019
dt: 08.07.2019 immediately after the purchase both petitioners and their
vendor issued attornment notices to the respondents to pay the rents from
August 2019 onwards to the petitioners who purchased the petition schedule property.
20
RC.No.145 of 2019
27.The further contention of the petitioners is that they purchased the petition schedule property with an intention to live in petition schedule property for convenience to run the business as petitioners running a kirana and general stores under the name and style of Varahi Traders is situated beside the petition schedule property, and the require petition schedule property as a bonafide requirement.
28.On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that there is no jural relationship of landlords and tenant between the petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises, as such the question of ever committing default in payment of rents by the respondent does not arise and that the petitioners are running kirana and general stores beside petition schedule property and shifting to petition schedule property is bonafide requirement of petitioners and respondent failed to pay the rent inspite of the attorney notices are created stories to grab the property of respondent.
29.In this regard also this court already discussed in point no.1 supra that there is no jural relationship as landlords and tenant between 21
RC.No.145 of 2019
petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises, therefore question of committing willful default in payment of monthly rents by the respondent and requirement of petition schedule premises by the petitioners does not arise. In view of the findings under point No.1, these points need not be discussed.
P O I N T No.4:-
30. In view of the findings under point No.1, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as prayed for.
31. In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 2nd day of November, 2023.
FAC IV ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for
Petitioners Respondent:
PW.1: Komma Santosh Kumar RW1: Nadera Begum 22
RC.No.145 of 2019
Documents marked for
Petitioners:-
Ex.P1: Certified copy of sale deed dt.8.7.2019. Ex.P2: Office copy of attornment notice dt.19.8.2019. Ex.P3: Office copy of attornment notice dt.19.8.2019. Ex.P4: Postal receipts of registered post acknowledgment due (2 in number) dt.19.8.2019. Ex.P5: Acknowledgment cards received by the respondent (2 in number) dt.20.8.2019 Ex.P6: Original electricity bill dt.9.9.2019.
For Respondent:
Ex.R.1: Original adhar card of the respondent. Ex.R.2: Original driving license. Ex.R.3: Original gas passbook. Ex.R.4: Photostat copies of gas receipts(2) marked with the consent of counsel for petitioner subject to filing of original receipts at the time of cross examination. Ex.R5: Original electricity bill dt.9.3.2023. Ex.R.6: Original SSC certificate dt.10.6.1999. Ex.R.7: Original passport. Ex.R.8: Original Aadhar card. Ex.R.9: Original receipt of acknowledgment of police department dt.24.7.2019 Ex.R10: Original bank passbook.
FAC IV ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
23
RC.No.145 of 2019
SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY
All that portion of the house bearing municipal No.H.No.8-3-166/C/8, Erragadda, Hyderabad bounded by:-
East:Portion of house NO.8-3-166/C/8, West:Road North:Neighbour’s house South:Passage and neighbour’s house
FAC IV ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER:
HYDERABAD.
24
RC.No.145 of 2019
xxxxxxxx
40.Whenever the willful default ground pleaded by the landlord, the burden lies on the tenant to establish that he has not committed any willful default in payment of rent. In the present case also the burden lies on the respondent to establish that he has not committed any willful default in payment of rent to the petitioners in respect of petition schedule premises.
41. Though the respondent has denied the jural relationship of landlords and tenant in between the petitioners and himself, as such question of committing default by him does not arise, but to prove the said contention, the respondent did not choose to cross examine PW.1 on the said aspect that he has not committed any willful default in payment of monthly rent as he is not residing as tenant in petition schedule premises.
As stated supra in point No.1, there is a jural relationship of landlords and tenant between the petitioners and respondent in respect of petition schedule premises.
25
RC.No.145 of 2019
42. In view of the discussion in point No.1, that there is jural relationship between the petitioners and respondent as landlords and tenant in respect of the petition schedule property.
43.The learned counsel for the petitioners cross examined RW.1 and could elicit the following:
“According to me since long time no one is claiming the rent including the petitioner even after filing this RC. It is true that the present RC is filed by the petitioners on the ground of willful default and payment of rent claiming arrears of rent from September 2018 to February 2019 at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month and act of waste and bonafide personal requirement. It is true that even after filing the present RC I have not paid any rents to the petitioners, therefore the petitioners filed application U/s.11(1) vide I.A.No.196/2019”.
44.In view of the admissions of RW.1 during the course of his cross examination, this court is of the opinion that the respondent has not paid the rents from September 2018 onwards to the petitioners and even after filing of RC by the petitioners also, the respondent has not paid the rents in respect of the petition schedule premises, as such the respondent has committed willful default in payment of rents to the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule premises. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.
26
RC.No.145 of 2019
P O I N T S No.3 and 4:-
45. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent committed act of waste which impaired materially the value and utility of petition schedule premises and that the persons of respondent have caused damage to the walls, roof, flooring in the petition schedule premises and as the respondent is not maintain the petition schedule premises, due to which caused damage to the petition schedule premises.
46.The further contention of the petitioners is that the petition schedule premises is more than 65 years old and the building has become dangerous to the life of the public in general and the occupants of the premises and the entire building may collapse at any time and that the petitioners are financially sound to invest required amount for demolition and reconstruction of the building on their share of house and the petition schedule premises is reasonably and bonafidely required by the petitioners for immediate purpose of demolition, as such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished for the residence of petitioners No.1 and 4 and that they are 27
RC.No.145 of 2019
not under the obligation to give an undertaking to deliver possession of newly constructed premises to the respondent
47.On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that he has not committed any act of waste and has been properly maintaining in neat and good condition under his occupation and that the petitioners cannot demolish the petition schedule premises or reconstruct the same as they do not have any right, title or interest over the same and they are seeking demolition of the same only with a view to evict the respondent from the petition schedule premises by hook or crook with an oblique motive and that the respondent has been residing in the petition schedule premises for the last more than 50 years without paying rents to any one and he has perfected his title over and upon the entire property by way of adverse possession.
48.Whenever the ground of reconstruction of petition schedule premises and also the act of waste ground pleaded by the landlord, the burden lies on the landlord to establish the same. In the present case also the burden lies on the petitioners to establish that the petition schedule 28
RC.No.145 of 2019
premises is in condition for reconstruction and that the respondent has committed act of waste in respect of petition schedule premises.
49.During the course of cross examination, RW.1 admitted that under Ex.R.4 the consumed electricity units shown as zero. On perusal of
Ex.R.4 electricity bill along with payment receipt dt.7.11.2022 shows the consumption of units is shown as zero, as such this court is of the opinion that the respondent is not residing in the petition schedule premises and kept the same under lock and also not maintaining the petition schedule premises properly, as such the consumption of units is showing zero under
Ex.R.4, which supports the contention of the petitioners that the respondent is not residing in the petition schedule premises, where the learned counsel for the petitioners has given a suggestion during the course of cross examination of RW.1 that the respondent is not residing in petition schedule premises. Though RW.1 denied the above said suggestion and stated that the condition of the petition schedule premises is in good condition. Further the respondent in his counter stated that he constructed the petition schedule premises in his own name, but during the course of his cross examination, RW.1 admitted that he has not filed 29
RC.No.145 of 2019
any documentary proof to show that he constructed the petition schedule property with his funds and that the statement with regard to construction of petition schedule property by himself at para NO.4 of his counter is false.
50.Hence, in view of the above said discussion, this court is of the opinion that there is no necessity of re-delivery of possession of petition schedule premises to the respondent by the petitioners as the respondent is not residing in the petition schedule premises which proves the same under Ex.R.4 electricity bill showing the consumption of electricity bill as zero. Further due to non residing of respondent in the petition schedule premises, the condition of the said premises is in damaged condition, as such the respondent has committed act of waste in respect of petition schedule premises by not residing in it. Accordingly, these points are answered with regarding condition of the petition schedule premises.
P O I N T No.5:- 30
RC.No.145 of 2019
51.The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioner No.4 is residing in Bangalore in a rented house and she has no sufficient means to survive in Bangalore, as such intend to shift her residence from Bangalore to petition schedule premises and adjoining premises which is under the occupation of another tenant by name G. Rajeshwari and that the petitioner No.4 along with petitioner No.1 intends to reside in the above said two portions and that the petition schedule premises along with adjoining premises is suitable and convenient for residential purpose and that the petitioner No.4 issued a notice dt.21.11.2018 to the respondent demanding to vacate the petition schedule premises for their bonafide requirement and having receipt of the said notice, the respondent neither vacated the premises nor paying the monthly rents and also failed to issue any reply to that effect. The further contention of the petitioners is that the petition schedule premises is more than 65 years old and the building has become dangerous to the life of the public in general and the occupants of the premises and the entire building may collapse at any time and the petition schedule premises is reasonably and bonafidely required by the petitioners for immediate purpose of demolition, as such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the 31
RC.No.145 of 2019
building sought to be demolished for the residence of petitioners No.1 and 4 and that they are not under the obligation to give an undertaking to deliver possession of newly constructed premises to the respondent and that they filed cases against the other tenant occupying the other portions of the property in the building in which the petition schedule premises is part and parcel for eviction on the similar grounds.
52.On the other hand, the respondent denies that the petitioner
No.4 is residing in a rented premises in Bangalore and that only for the purpose of setting up the ground for eviction of the respondent and that the petitioner No.4 never orally demanded the respondent to vacate the petition schedule premises and that the petitioners cannot demolish the petition schedule premises or reconstruct the same as they do not have any right, title or interest over the same and they are seeking demolition of the same only with a view to evict the respondent from the petition schedule premises by hook or crook with an oblique motive.
53.Admittedly, whenever the bonafide requirement ground is pleaded, the burden of proof lies on the petitioners to establish that the 32
RC.No.145 of 2019
requirement of the petition schedule premises by the petitioners is bonafide one.
54. Though the respondent cross examined PW.1 at length, but could not elicit that the petitioner is having other non residential premises in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and he could not elicit anything in his favour. Except the bald allegation that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioners and respondent, the respondent did not choose to file single paper in support of his contention. Further the respondent also failed to file any document to show that petitioners are having any other non residential property occupied by them in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.
55. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioner No.4 intend to shift her residence from Bangalore to petition schedule premises and adjoining premises which is under the occupation of another tenant by name G. Rajeshwari and that the petitioner No.4 along with petitioner No.1 intends to reside in the above said two portions. Further the learned counsel for respondent could not elicit from the cross examination of PW.1 33
RC.No.145 of 2019
that the petitioners have any alternative accommodation or petitioners does not bonafidely require the petition schedule property for their own purpose. Further the petitioner No.1 is aged about 68 years at the time of filing of the present RC which was filed on 1.4.2019 and she being a senior citizen is entitled for eviction of the respondent under 10-C of RC
Act.
56. For which this court also relied on a decision in Krishna
Kumar Rastogi Vs. Sumitra Devi reported in AIR 2014 SC 3635 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
“It is the choice of the landlord to choose the place for
the business which is most suitable for him and he has
complete freedom in the matter and the landlord is the
best judge of his requirement and courts have no
concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what
manner he should live”.
57. In view of the above said discussion and in the light of the above said decision, it can be concluded that the requirement of petitioners in respect of petition schedule premises is bonafide requirement and the benefits caused to landlords would over weigh the hardship caused to tenant. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the petitioners.
34
RC.No.145 of 2019
P O I N T No.6:-
58. Since the points No.1 to 5 are answered in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for.
59. In the result, the petition is allowed without costs and the respondent is directed to vacate the petition schedule premises and hand over the physical, vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the petitioners within two months from the date of the order. In case of failure, the petitioners are at liberty to evict the respondent by following the due process of law.
35
RC.No.145 of 2019
36
RC.No.145 of 2019
Order Record 360 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCC/59/2016 | DHARMESH G MEHATHA vs V MOHAN RAO | 17 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/224/2015 | SUDHEER GUPTHA vs BAJRANGLAL | 17 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/110/2019 | Syed Jaffar Hussain vs Khajamuneeruddin | 17 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/18/2020 | Farzana Hamid vs Mohd Raffat Ali sajjad | 15 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/96/2021 | B. Madan Mohan vs Vijay Jain | 14 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/100001/2015 | Shaik Mohammed Hazi vs Sreenu | 08 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/54/2022 | Raj Kumar vs Afzal Jabbar | 08 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/37/2019 | Om Prakash vs Jijji Bai | 08 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/88/2015 | AKKLADEVI PARAMESHWAR vs AB. JOSEPH | 07 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/252/2014 | Smt. Sugra Bee vs Sri. Mohd.Sattar Sharif | 07 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/47/2011 | M/s.Satyanarayana Soni Seva Sansthan rep. by Mr.Basant Kumar Soni vs M/S.Dhanwatri Enterprises, Rep.by Proprietor Sri.Seetharam Agarwal | 06 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/149/2016 | Mrs. Sayeeda Akhter alias Syed Akhter vs Shakuntala Bai | 03 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/168/2015 | Mahesh chand Agrwal vs Mohd. Jawed Ahemed | 03 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/174/2015 | Mahesh chand agarwal vs Mohd. Jawed Ahenmed | 03 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/62/2018 | Sangam Shoba Rani vs M. Chakali Narsing Rao | 02 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/145/2019 | Komma Santosh Kumar vs Nadera Begum | 02 Nov 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/43/2017 | Mr.Shivdutt Rai Educationl Charitable trust vs Sudesh Kumar | 31 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/51/2017 | Shidat Rai Educationl Charitable Trust vs Sudesh Kumar | 31 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/78/2016 | Kailashchander Kedia vs K.Muralidhar | 31 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/47/2014 | SHANKERLAL PANWER vs SRI VINOD KUMAR | 31 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/67/2019 | Rajaram vs Kishanlal Agarwal | 31 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/68/2019 | Rajaram vs Kishanlal Agarwal | 31 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/171/2019 | Mohd Azam Ghori vs Dr.Mohd Imran Ghori | 30 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/83/2019 | Ishrath Fatima vs Moiz Ahmed Sajid | 30 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/5/2018 | Dr. Sri Ramakrishna S. Satwalekar vs Manorama Jivraj Dand | 20 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/7/2018 | Sri Ramakrishna S. Satwalekar vs Manorama Jivraj Dand | 20 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/108/2019 | Jaswant Kumar vs Madanlal Agarwal | 20 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/61/2021 | Gowlikar Shankar Bai vs P. Hunumantha Rao | 19 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/63/2021 | M.A.Aziz vs Anwarunnissa Begum | 19 Oct 2023 | Other | — |
| RCC/23/2014 | Mohd. Misbahuddin vs A.Vishwanadharao | 19 Oct 2023 | Order | Petition Allowed |
| RCC/89/2017 | C.Satyanarayana vs Smt.V.Susheela | 19 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/1/2023 | Mujahid Fasi Hyder vs Mohammed Saleem | 17 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/25/2023 | D.Savithri vs Madhusudhan | 11 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/48/2020 | Sri Subhash Bajaj vs Sri Subhash | 11 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/102/2018 | K Bhaskar Rao vs Narasing Dass Loya | 10 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/38/2022 | Zeenath Begum Rep. by Ashfaq Ali Quraihi vs Qasim Begum | 09 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/41/2011 | M/S.Satyanarayana Soni Seva Sansthan rep.by Mr.Basant Kumar Soni vs Smt. Chandra Devi | 06 Oct 2023 | Other | — |
| EP/20/2023 | C.Rajesh vs C.Deepak Roy | 05 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/49/2019 | G.Shantha Bai vs K.L.Govindaraju | 05 Oct 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/50/2019 | G. Shantha Bai vs Vsrajeshwari | 05 Oct 2023 | Order | Compromised |
| EP/22/2023 | Guru Basaiah vs A. Ramesh | 21 Sep 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/21/2022 | Mohammed Gulroz vs Mohammed Jaweed Ansari | 19 Sep 2023 | Other | — |
| RCC/28/2020 | B.Vishwanath vs Sri Ashok Kumar | 15 Sep 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/34/2023 | Mohammed Feroz vs Syed Hameed Ali | 12 Sep 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/19/2021 | Fareeda Begum vs Mohammed Nooruddin | 08 Sep 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/24/2023 | P. Jaganatham vs M. Narsaiah | 06 Sep 2023 | Other | — |
| EP/24/2023 | P. Jaganatham vs M. Narsaiah | 02 Sep 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/17/2023 | Ragavender Prashad vs Murthy Bai Hatwal | 08 Aug 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/19/2023 | Miraz Tafazzul Baig @Nawab vs VswabYakub Sharif @Na | 03 Aug 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/60/2021 | Nandkishor Baheti vs T.L.Murali Mohan | 03 Aug 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/61/2020 | Nandkishore Baheti vs T.L.Murali Mohan | 03 Aug 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/16/2023 | Ramlal Yadav vs Hari Das Sharma | 01 Aug 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/58/2017 | Mohammed Minhaj Madhani vs N.Kishore Kumar | 31 Jul 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/59/2017 | Mohammed Minhaj Madhani vs N.Kalawathi | 31 Jul 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/34/2018 | K Dayanand vs P. Naresh Kumar | 31 Jul 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/141/2017 | Syed Shah Meeran Hussaini Quadri vs Mohd.Khaleel Ahmed | 27 Jul 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/144/2017 | Syed Shah Meeran Hussaini Quadri vs Mohd Khaleel Ahmed | 27 Jul 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/11/2023 | Mullampalli aparna vs Mohammed Osman | 14 Jul 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/18/2022 | Giridhar Gopal Dhoot vs Mohd. Saleem | 12 Jul 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/18/2023 | Bethany Baptist Church Society Rep. vs Farah Khan | 11 Jul 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/165/2018 | MD.Muktar Ahmed vs MD.Liyaqath | 30 Jun 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/13/2023 | Nagari Balram vs Arsid Manoj | 27 Jun 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/14/2023 | Nagari Balram vs Arsid Ravinder | 27 Jun 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/15/2023 | Farzana Begum (Died) per LRs vs Mohd Muneer | 27 Jun 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/19/2021 | P. Naveen Kumar vs Mohd saleem | 16 Jun 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/2/2023 | Kishor lal yadav died per LRs vs Sandeep Khurana | 12 Jun 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/17/2022 | Chaya Devi vs Manohar lal | 12 Jun 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/115/2017 | Ch.Brahmachary vs P Ramesh | 09 Jun 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/116/2015 | Guru Pershad Sanghi vs M/s.Santosh Paper Mart | 05 May 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/48/2011 | M/s.Satyanarayana Soni Seva Sansthan rep. by Mr.Basant Kumar Soni vs Smt.Rajashree Soni | 05 May 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/83/2011 | M/s.Satyanarayana Soni Seva Sansthan rep. by Mr.Basant Kumar Soni vs Sri.Kamal Kishore Soni | 05 May 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/257/2014 | Surender Kumar Gehlot vs G.Premalata | 04 May 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/258/2014 | Surender Kumar Gehlot vs G.Premalatha | 04 May 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/263/2014 | Veerender Kumar Gehlot vs Smt. G. Premalata | 04 May 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/264/2014 | Veerender Kumar Gehlot vs G.Premalata | 04 May 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/265/2014 | Veerender Kumar Gehlot vs Smt. G. Premalata | 04 May 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/9/2023 | Hyderabad - Secunderabad Naisen Samaj,Represented by Sri Hari Ram Sen S/o Late Sri. Sagarmal Sen vs Suman Kumar Toshniwal Died per LRs | 03 May 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/224/2015 | SUDHEER GUPTHA vs BAJRANGLAL | 02 May 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/2/2020 | M.Rajendra presently rep by GPA S.Srinivasulu Naidu vs A.V.Ramana Rao | 02 May 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/245/2014 | BETANY BAPIST CHURCH vs FATHEKHAN ALIAS DURESHWAR | 01 May 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/200007/2018 | Vs | 28 Apr 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/25/2022 | Mohd Aleemuddin vs C. Subhash | 27 Apr 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/62/2022 | Ragavender Prashad vs Murthy Bai Hatwal | 27 Apr 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/150/2016 | Mrs Sayeeda Akther alias Syed Akther vs Shamla | 26 Apr 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/286/2013 | Ramlal Yadav vs Hari Das Sarma | 26 Apr 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/149/2015 | Nagari Balram vs Shri Arsid Ravinder | 25 Apr 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/150/2015 | Nagari Balram vs ShriAsrid Manoj | 25 Apr 2023 | Order | — |
| OS/250/2007 | Mohd Shafeeuddin vs The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. | 24 Apr 2023 | Judgement | — |
| OS/4599/2008 | G BALAYYA vs K ANASUYAAMA | 24 Apr 2023 | Judgement | — |
| RCC/84/2017 | Mohd.Ibrahim farooqui vs Mohd.sardaruddin | 13 Apr 2023 | Order | — |
| EP/15/2022 | Syed Shafiullah vs Mumtaz Shareef | 10 Apr 2023 | Other | — |
| RCC/184/2015 | Bindesh R.S.Kamdar vs Mahender Kumar Gandhi | 06 Apr 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/153/2016 | SMT SUDHA BIN MEHATHA GPA DHARMESH G MEHAHATHA S/O SRI GUNVATHRI MEHATHA AGE 50 YRS vs V. MOHANA RAO | 31 Mar 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/159/2015 | ABDUL REHMAN MUNAVAR vs AHEMED ALI | 31 Mar 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/160/2015 | Abdul Rahman Munawar vs Iqbal Ali Khan | 31 Mar 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/161/2015 | ABDULRAHEEM MUNAR vs ALAMDER HUSSIAN | 31 Mar 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/242/2015 | Mohd. Akber vs Saleha Sultana | 28 Mar 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/45/2010 | Seetharam Agarwal vs Sri Satyanarayana Soni | 23 Mar 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/46/2010 | Seetharam Agarwal Died per LRs Gayathri Devi Agarwal vs Satyanarayana Soni | 23 Mar 2023 | Order | — |
| RCC/47/2010 | Kamlesh Kumar Kedia vs Satyanarayana Soni | 23 Mar 2023 | Order | — |
Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)
| Nov 2023 | 16 | |
| Oct 2023 | 26 | |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | |
| Aug 2023 | 7 | |
| Jul 2023 | 8 | |
| Jun 2023 | 15 | |
| May 2023 | 13 | |
| Apr 2023 | 12 | |
| Mar 2023 | 21 | |
| Feb 2023 | 16 | |
| Jan 2023 | 18 | |
| Dec 2022 | 11 |
Log in for full trend data.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has MS T NAGARANI handled?
MS T NAGARANI has handled 387 court orders since 2021 at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 24 orders per month.
What types of cases does MS T NAGARANI hear?
Based on available records, MS T NAGARANI primarily handles Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Original Suits) at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex.
Where is MS T NAGARANI currently posted?
MS T NAGARANI is posted as Prl. Rent Controller at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.
Are judgments by MS T NAGARANI available online?
Yes. 43 judgments by MS T NAGARANI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does MS T NAGARANI dispose cases?
MS T NAGARANI disposes approximately 24 cases per month, based on 387 orders handled over their tenure at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex.
Since when is MS T NAGARANI serving?
MS T NAGARANI has been serving at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex since 2021.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Jan 2023 — Mar 2023Prl. Rent Controller
-
Jan 2023 — Mar 2023Addl. Rent Controller · 2 orders
-
Jul 2022 — Sep 2022Prl. Rent Controller · 3 orders
-
Jul 2022 — Sep 2022Addl. Rent Controller · 6 orders
-
Oct 2021 — Feb 2022Prl. Rent Controller · 2 orders
-
Oct 2021 — Apr 2022Addl. Rent Controller · 16 orders
-
Oct 2021 — Nov 2023Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge. · 110 orders
-
Oct 2021 — Nov 2023I Addl. Rent Controller-cum-XIII Junior Civil Judge. · 61 orders
-
Oct 2021 — Nov 2023II Addl. Rent Controller-cum-XIV Junior Civil Judge. · 70 orders
-
Oct 2021 — Nov 2023III Addl. Rent Controller-cum-XV Junior Civil Judge. · 57 orders
-
Oct 2021 — Nov 2023IV Addl. Rent Controller-cum-XVI Junior Civil Judge. · 60 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court