THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2022 of 2023

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.465 of

2022 in A.S.No.235 of 2017 by the learned X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. I.A.No.465 of 2022 is filed under Order XI Rule 14 read with Rule 21 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the petitioner/appellant to direct the respondent to produce the original Leave and License Agreement, dated 01.01.2012, and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard Sri Mohd. Iliyas, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Syed Ahmed Ali, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the contract between the parties is only Leave and License Agreement or a rental agreement, the Court below ought not to have dismiss I.A.No.465 of 2022 along with unconcerned application i.e., I.A.No.794 of 2020, stating that it is an old matter and has to be disposed of, which is not the ground for adjudication of an application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Court below deliberately refused to pass an order under Rule XXI Order 11, which mandates it to pass an order or direction to the respondent who had very categorically admitted that the contract between the parties was Leave or License in their plaint pleading including the preamble of the Judgment under this revision. Thus, thereby sustaining the illegality to be continued under assumption of Lease alleged to have been executed by the parties herein, and in the absence of the mandatory document as required for ascertaining the nature of contract between the parties and maintainability of the suit and appeal under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was not at all considered by the Court below and without considering this aspect by the learned Judge, who had arrived to unjust conclusion by dismissing the application without passing mandatory relief, is bad in law.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that Court below failed to appreciate the clear admission of the respondent which was established from his sworn statement filed, and passed an unjust order failing to determine and ascertain the nature of contract. Therefore, prayed the Court to direct the respondent to produce the record i.e., Leave and License Agreement, dated 01.01.2012 before the Court below, failing which the Court below is directed to dismiss the suit vide O.S.No.1030 of 2015.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent filed counter denying the averments of the revision petition stating that this revision is not maintainable as per law. He further submitted that challenging the decree of eviction, passed in O.S.No.1030 of 2015, the petitioner filed appeal suit vide A.S.No.235 of 2017, who is the tenant in the suit schedule premises and to drag on the matter. Earlier he filed C.R.P.No.4956 of 2017 and the same was dismissed on 22.02.2023. During the pendency of the Appeal Suit, revision petitioner came up with another petition vide I.A.No.794 of 2020, under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC read with 151 of CPC to frame additional issues claiming that the trial Court failed to frame issues on the disputed facts. When the counter was filed mentioning the details of the issues framed by the trial court, along with the copy of the judgment passed in the suit, then subsequently, the petitioner came up with another petition vide I.A.No.465 of 2022 in A.S.No.235 of 2017 under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC read with Rule 21 and Section 151 of CPC. Both the petitions were dismissed by the appellate Court vide order dated 10.07.2023, against which, he filed this Civil Revision Petition and the same is not maintainable as the petitioner did not deposit the arrears of rents as directed by this Court in C.R.P.No.4956 of 2017 and it is only a vexatious petition just to drag on the ma