THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2416 of 2014 DATED: 22.08.2014 Between:
Smt. Bumi Reddy Pranitha and another .. Petitioners and Dr. K.V.S.N. Prasad .. Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. G.L. Narasimha Rao This Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 28.04.2014 in I.A.No.11 of 2014 in O.S.No.287 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
I have heard Mr. G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record.
The petitioners have filed the above-mentioned suit for eviction of the respondent and also for damages. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that they have purchased the suit schedule property from the original owner by name N. Madhusudhan Reddy through his purported G.P.A. The said Madhusudhan Reddy has filed O.S.No.1072 of 2012 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for declaration that the G.P.A. executed by him is null and void and consequently the sale deed executed by the G.P.A. in favour of the petitioners is also null and void. While the said suit is pending, the petitioners have filed the present suit for eviction of the respondent and for damages and they have also filed I.A.No.11 of 2014 under Order XVA of C.P.C. for a direction to the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent and also to deposit the future monthly rents at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month pending the suit and in default to strike off the defence of the respondent in the suit. The respondent filed a written statement in the suit and also a counter-affidavit to the I.A., wherein he has taken a stand that as there is a bona fide dispute between the petitioners on one side and Mr. N. Madhusudhan Reddy, who was having ownership of the property, on the other side and that as he was inducted by the said Madhusudhan Reddy, he is continuing to pay the rent to the said Madhusudhan Reddy. The lower Court dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioners on the ground that when there is a dispute on the jural relationship between the petitioners and the respondent as landlord and tenant, no direction for deposit of rent can be granted.
In my opinion, as the suit filed by Mr. Madhusudhan Reddy, the original owner of the property, questioning the very sale deed itself is pending, the respondent cannot be forced to deposit the rents in the Court; more so, when the petitioners have not impleaded the said Madhusudhan Reddy as a party to the suit, any direction that may be given to the respondent to deposit the rent would affect the interests of the said Madhusudhan Reddy. For the reasons best known to the petitioners, they have not impleaded the said Madhusudhan Reddy in the suit.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order of the lower Court.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.3383 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd August, 2014 IBL