1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. K.LALITHA KUMARI, BSC, BL.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016.

OS.NO. 1450 OF 2012

BETWEEN:-

Kommagouni Prashanthi W/o

K.Sadanand OCC: House wife,
Aged about 40 years R/o H.No.
16-1-442, Saidabad, Hyderabad
.....Plaintiff
AND

1. K.Surender Reddy S/o

Purushotham Reddy Aged about
45 years
Director, M/s Engineers Syndicate
(India) Pvt. Ltd., Now Residing at
Plot no. 50, H.no. 1-8-9/C,
Ravindranagar Colony, Hybsiguda,
Hyderabad -07.

2. L.Vittal Reddy S/o L.Narsimha

Reddy Aged about 50 years, R/o
H.No. 1-7, Gowrelli Village,
Hayathnagar (M), Ranga Reddy
District.
....Defendants

This Suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the

presence of Sri G.V.Giridharan, counsel for the plaintiff and Sri K.Raj

Reddy, counsel for the defendant no.2 and 1st defendant was set exparte

and upon perusal of material papers on the record and the matter having

stood over consideration till this day, this court made the following:-
 2

JUDGMENT

1. Suit is filed for eviction of the defendant no.1 from the

plaint schedule property and for recovery of arrears of rent for RS.

1,02,000/- along with the interest @ 12% per annum.

2. The material averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint

are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of

agricultural land an extant AC 2-31 gts in sy.no. 237 situated at

Gowrelli Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The

plaintiff purchased the property under registered sale deed doc.no.

3378/1997 dt 12.06.1997 from original owner J.Saiyanna the vendor

delivered the possession of the property under the registered sale

deed to the plaintiff, since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff has mutated her name in

the revenue records and obtained pattadar pass book no. 361302

patta no. 172 and the title deed no. 339309 the name of the plaintiff

was recorded in 1-B register along with the photograph of the

plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff got surveyed her land with the help of mandal

surveyor in file no. 02/ 2006 dt 06.02.2006. The plaintiff let out the

land to the 1st defendant under the lease agreement dt 17.04.2004

for storing of gravel, granites and chips as the defendant no.1 is

having cursing unit in the neighbouring land. The defendant no.1 is

agreed to pay the rent @ RS. 12,000/- per year , the lease was
 3

renewed at request of the tenant, in the subsequent years ie in the

year 2005-06 , the defendant no.1 paid Rs. 15000/- per annum for

the year 2006-2007 Rs. 20,000/- per year, for the year 2007-08 Rs.

21,000/- per year. The plaintiff after receiving the rents passed

stamped receipts, in favour of the defendant no.1.

4. In the month of May -2010 a fresh oral lease entered in to

by both parties the 1st defendant promised to pay Rs. 25,000/- per

year towards rent, and also agreed to pay the yearly rent on 10th

April. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 failed to pay the rents to the

plaintiff for the year 2010, 2011, 2012. the defendant no. 1 had

committed default in payment of rents, the defendant is liable to pay

Rs. 75,000/- towards arrears of rent. Sine the defendant no.1 had

committed willful default in payment of rents the plaintiff got issued a

notice U/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act, and demanded the

defendant to vacate the schedule property and tenancy was

terminated . The said legal notice dt 20.04.2012 was received by the

1st defendant but no reply was given.

5. The defendant no.2 is the not at all the owner or possessor

of the plaint schedule property. In fact the plaintiff is the absolute

owner having purchased the property under registered sale deed

doc.no. 3378/97 st 12.06.1997 from J.Saiyanna. J.Saiyanna sold the

property in favour of the plaintiff and delivered the possession to the

plaintiff. The defendant no. 2 in collusion with the defendant no.1 got

created the lease deed with a malafide intention only to grab the
 4

property of the plaintiff. The defendant no.2 also filed OS.No.

1563/2009 against the plaintiff and J.Jangaiah, Srinu, for the relief of

perpetual injunction and also filed IA.No. 1843/09 to grant temporary

injunction. The respondent in IA.No. 1843/2009 filed counter the

same was dismissed on merits on 03.09.2010 after considering all the

documents. The defendant no.2 filed CMA the same was dismissed by

confirming the orders passed by the lower court. The defendant no.2

has no right title possession over the suit schedule property and

executed lease deed behind back of the plaintiff on 05.01.2012 in

favour of the 1st defendant which is not at all binding on the plaintiff.

As the defendant no.1 admitted that he is the tenant of the plaintiff

under the lease agreement in IA.no. 1843/2009 the said lease deed

was taken in to consideration by the court, while dismissing the

IA.No. 1843/2009. The defendant no.2 is a party in IA.no. 1843/09

hence the defendant no.2 cannot execute any lease deed in favour of

the 1st defendant. As the 1st defendant has committed default in

payment of rents. The plaintiff got terminated the tenancy, by issuing

notice, hence the plaintiff filed the suit to order eviction o the 1st

defendant from the suit schedule property and for recovery of rents

Rs. 1,02,000/- from the defendant no.1.

6. Initially defendants 1 & 2 were set exparte. Thereafter the

defendant no.2 filed IA.No. 792/12 to set aside the exparte the same

was allowed 2nd defendant filed written statement. The contention of

the 2nd defendant is that the plaintiff is not at all the owner or
 5

possessor of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff in collusion with

the 1st defendant created the documents, and filed this suit only to

grab the property of the defendant and his son.

7. The contention of the 2nd defendant is that the 2nd

defendant along with his son L.Naveen Reddy are the absolute owners

of the agricultural land in sy.no. 236 admeasuring AC 4-15 gts and in

sy.no. 237 admeasuring AC 2-31 gts, total AC 7-06 gts situated at

Gowrelli village, Hayathnagar Mandal, originally the said lands belongs

to one Jakka Yadamma who acquired the property by way of

succession from Jakka Saiyanna. The name of Jakka Yadamma was

mutated in the revenue records. As the absolute owners Jakka

Yadamma sold the property to the defendant and his son under the

registered sale deed doc.no. 18779/06 st 30.11.2006 and doc.no.

6400/08 dt 30.06.2008 since from that date the 2nd defendant and

his son are in exclusive possession of the property and their names

were mutated in the revenue records proceedings no. B/9125/2006 dt

14.02.2007 and B/2149/08 dt 28.08.2008 the revenue authorities

also issued pattadar pass book and title deeds. After purchasing the

property the 2nd defendant leveled the land by investing huge

amount, and make it fit for cultivation. The 1st defendant approached

the 2nd defendant and obtained land an extant of AC 7-06 gts at

Gowrelli Village, in sy.no. 236 and 237 under the lease deed since

then the 1st defendant is paying rents, to the 2nd defendant. Now the

plaintiff filed the suit only to harass the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff
 6

and the other 6 persons has no right, title over the property when the

plaintiff trying to interfere in to the property the 2nd defendant filed

OS.No. 1563/09 the 1st defendant regularly paying the rents, hence

the question of payment of arrears of rent to the plaintiff to not arise.

The plaintiff is no way concerned with the schedule property the 2nd

defendant prays the court to dismiss the suit.

8. Basing on the above pleasings the following issues were

framed:-

1. Whether there is any land lord tenant relationship in between the

plaintiff and the 1st defendant.

2. Whether the 1st defendant had committed default in payment of

rents.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for recovery of vacant possession

of the suit schedule property from the defendant no.1.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent?

5. To what relief?

9. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as

PW-1 and got marked EX.A1 to A19 documents. On behalf of the

defendant the defendant no.2 was examined as DW-1 EX.B1 to B9

marked. Mohammed Akbar Ali Khan was examined as DW-2.

Issue no. 1& 2 Whether there is any land lord tenant

relationship in between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Whether

the 1st defendant had committed default in payment of rents.

10. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of vacant possession
 7

of the suit schedule property after evicting the 1st defendant and for

recovery of arrears of rent, to a tune of Rs. 1,02,000/-.

11. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the absolute

owner of the plaint schedule property an extant of AC 2-31 gts in

sy.no. 237 of Gowrelli village, Hayathnagar Mandal, having purchased

the property under registered sale deed doc.no. 3378/97 from Jakka

Saiyanna, since then the plaintiff is in possession of the property the

name of the plaintiff was incorporated in the revenue records,

pattadar pass book and title deed was issued in favour of the plaintiff.

The 1st defendant entered in to the lease agreement with the plaintiff

and agreed to pay the rents, accordingly the 1st defendant paid rents,

for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09. In the year 2010 a fresh

oral lease was entered in to by both parties and the 1st defendant

agreed to pay the rents @ Rs. 25,000/- per year. Subsequently the

1st defendant failed to pay the rents on that the plaintiff got issued a

legal notice and filed this suit for eviction of the 1st defendant and for

recovery of arrears of rent.

12. The 1st defendant was set exparte. The 2nd defendant is

contesting the suit by filing written statement. Stating that that the

2nd defendant purchased the property along with his son from the

legal heir of Jakka Saiyanna under registered sale deeds, since then

the 2nd defendant and his son are in possession of the property the

2nd defendant let out the property to the 1st defendant under

registered sale deed the 2nd defendant denied the right title of the
 8

plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Even though the 1st

defendant who is the tenant was set exparte. As the 2nd defendant

denied the land lord tenant relationship in between plaintiff and the

1st defendant. The plaintiff has to prove that the plaintiff is the

absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has to

prove that the 1st defendant is her tenant.

13. In support of the plaintiffs case the plaintiff herself

examined as Pw-1 and got marked EX.A1 Registered sale deed

executed by Jakka Saiyanna, in favour of the plaintiff, EX.A2 mutation

proceedings EX.A3 & A4 are the pattadar pass book and title deed

EX.A6 CC of panchnama EX.A7 is the 1-B namona which clearly

reflects the name of the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the plaint

schedule property. The other documents filed by the plaintiff which

was marked as EX.A14 to A18 are copies of the rent receipts, clearly

shows that the tenant / 1st defendant paid rents to the plaintiff and

the plaintiff passed the receipts in favour of the tenant. Thus the

plaintiff by filing documents proved her title and proved the land lord

tenant relationship in between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant

more over EX.A5 is the CC of the lease deed clearly shows that the

plaintiff entered in to lease agreement with the 1st defendant. The

plaintiff mainly relied on the order passed in IA.No. 1843/09 in

OS.NO. 1563/09 ie CC of the order clearly shows that the relief of

injunction in favour of the 2nd defendant who is the plaintiff in OS.No.

1563/09 was dismissed on the ground that the tenant Surender

 9

Reddy is the tenant of the 7th respondent by name K.Prashanthi who

is non other then the plaintiff herein. Hence, it is clear that the

documents filed by the plaintiff EX.A13 CC of the decree and

Judgment in OS.no. 1563/2009 was dismissed then it is clear that the

plaintiff by filing documents by way of oral evidence proved that the

plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and the

plaintiff let out the suit schedule property to the 1st defendant. Hence

the plaintiff proved that there is a land lord tenant relationship in

between the plaintiff and 1st defendant.

14. The case of the defendant is that the 2nd defendant is the

absolute owner of the plaint schedule property having purchased the

property from legal heirs of Jakka Saiyanna ie Jakka Yadamma. This

plea was not considered by the court as per the Judgment in OS.No.

1563/2009 even though appeal is pending there is a clear finding in

the EX.A13 Judgment that inspite of directions given by the RDO in

proceedings B/933/2009 dt 05.08.2011 that the parties has to

approach the Civil Court to prove their title, having knowledge about

the orders passed by RDO The defendant did not approached the

Court by filing the suit for declaration of his title, and also inspite of

finding in the decree, in OS.No. 1563/2009 that the 2nd defendant

has no title over the property as the 2nd defendant purchased the

property from Jakka Yadamma, who has no right, title over the

property of Jakka Saiyanna, since during the life time, Jakka Saiyanna

Sold the property to the plaintiff herein under registered sale deed.
 10

Then it is clear that the 2nd defendant has no legal right to enter in to

the lease agreement with the 1st defendant. More over the order

passed by RDO is also clear that K.Surender Reddy is the tenant of

Prashtnthi ie the plaintiff herein. In such circumstances the contention

of the 2nd defendant that the 2nd defendant let out the property to

the 1st defendant do not arise. The order of the RDO is clear that M/s

Engineers Syndicate is the tenant in the land in sy.no. 237 an extant

of AC 2-31 gts even from the year 2004 onwards. According to the

defendant the defendant, and his son purchased the properties under

registered sale deeds in the year 2006 and 2008 doc.no. 18779/2006

and doc.no. 6400/08 dt 30.06.2008, the other documents filed by the

defendants those are the rent receipts admittedly the rent receipts is

in the name of Janapriya Engineering Syndicate private limited

admittedly it is not the 1st defendant, hence the copy of cheque and

bank statement no way helpful to the defendant to support his case.

Hence it is clear that the 1st defendant is a tenant in the property

even prior to the alleged sale deeds of defendant no.2 and his son.

Then it is clear that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and the 1st

defendant is the tenant in the schedule property as the 1st defendant

committed default in payment of rents, then the plaintiff got issued

notice U/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act, by terminating the tenancy

of the 1st defendant hence the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the

plaint schedule property after evicting the defendant no.1. Issue no.1

& 2 answered accordingly.

 11

Issue no.3 & 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitle for recovery of

vacant possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant

no.1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent?

15. The documents filed by the plaintiff clearly shows that

EX.A14 to A19 from 13.04.2004 to 31.03.2008 the 1st defendant paid

the rents to the plaintiff, thereafter committed default in payment of

rents. As the plaintiff proved the land lord tenant relationship and also

proved that the 1st defendant committed default in payment of rent

and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent after

evicting the defendant from the suit schedule property. Hence the

plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent @ RS. 25,000/- per

year for the years 2010, 2011, 2012 an amount of Rs. 75,000/- along

with interest @ 12 % ie RS. 1,02,000/- and the plaintiff is entitled for

recovery of the rents @ Rs. 25,000/- per year from the date of filing

of the suit till the date of recovery of vacant possession of the suit

schedule property from the 1st defendant on payment of required

court fees. Hence issue no.3 & 4 answered accordingly.

Issue no.4 to what relief?

16. In the result, suit is decreed with cost, directing the 1st

defendant to vacate the schedule property within 2 months and hand

over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the

plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent, Rs.

1,02,000/- from the 1st defendant. The plaintiff also entitled for

recovery of rents @ Rs. 25,000/- per year from the date of filing of
 12

the suit till the date of recovery of vacant possession of the suit

schedule property from the 1st defendant on payment of required

court fees.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 17th day of October, 2016.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF

PW-1: K.Prashanthi

FOR DEFENDANTS:
DW-1: L.Vittal Reddy
DW-2: Mohd. Akber Ali Khan
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF
EX.A1: is the CC of sale deed doc.no. 3378/97 dt 12.06.97 executed by
Jakka Sayanna in favour of plaintiff for the suit amount.
EX.A2: is the CC of the proceedings of MRO Hayathnagar Mutating the
name of plaintiff dt 27.06.1998
EX.A3: is the CC of the pattadar pass book
EX.A4: is the CC of the title deed
EX.A5: is the CC of lease agreement dt 17.04.15
EX.A6: is the CC of panchanama file No. Ms/02/06 dt 06.02.06by MRO
Hayathnagar
EX.A7: is the CC of B-Namona in favour of plaintiff
EX.A8: is the CC of order in IA 1843/09 OS 1563/09 dt 3.9.10
EX.A09: is the CC of lease deed in between D2
EX.A10: is the o/c of legal notice dt 20.04.12
EX.A11: is the postal receipt
EX.A12: is the postal acknowledgment
 13

EX.A13: is the CC of Judgment & Decree in OS.No. 1563/2008 dt

06.07.2015

EX.A14: is the copy of rent receipt contains the signature of

employees of 1st defendant dt 13.04.2004

EX.A15: is the copy of rent receipt contains the signature of

employees of 1st defendant dt 13.04.2005

EX.A16: is the is the copy of rent receipt contains the signature of

employees of 1st defendant dt 25.04.2005

EX.A17: is the copy of rent receipt contains the signature of

employees of 1st defendant dt 07.04.2006

EX.A18: is the copy of rent receipt contains the signature of

employees of 1st defendant dt 30.04.2007

EX.A19: is the copy of rent receipt contains the signature of

employees of 1st defendant dt 31.03.2008

(Copies of EX.A14 to A19 are marked subject to objection)

FOR DEFENDANT NIL

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.