ORDER:

With consent finally heard, Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the order dated 15.02.2024 in I.A.No.556 of 2023 in O.S.No.2374 of 2023 on the file of XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby, the application filed under Order XV-A Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the plaintiff/landlord/respondent herein was allowed by the Court below.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein i.e., defendant/tenants submits that the said order is bad in law. During the course of hearing, he fairly submitted that no doubt the plaintiff’s mother was the landlord of the suit schedule property. However, she sold the said property to the father of defendants through an unregistered document in the year 2002. Thereafter, no rent was paid by the defendants or their father. The father of defendants died in the year 2021. There is no jural relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. There is no rent receipt which shows that the defendants have ever paid rent to the plaintiff. By placing reliance on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Aritaakula Satyanarayana Murthy vs. Patchipulusu Naga Suneetha1, it is submitted that when there exists a serious dispute about the relationship of landlord and tenant and also about the title between both the parties, full-fledged trial should be conducted. It is submitted that along with the un-registered document to sell the mother of plaintiff provided all original documents of title to the father of defendants. The Court below has committed error in allowing the application preferred under Order XV-A Rule 1 read with Section

151 of the CPC.

4. Countering the aforesaid argument, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that it is trite that nobody can acquire title of property on the basis of an unregistered document. The present petitioners/defendants have already filed a suit for specific performance vide O.S.No.2517 of 2023 seeking specific performance of the agreement allegedly entered in the year 2002. The said suit will be dismissed because it is barred by limitation

1 MANU/AP/0813/2023

and an unregistered document cannot fetch any result. Apart from this, it is submitted that in view of the judgments in Asha Rani Gupta vs. Sri Vineet Kumar2 and Mohd. Raza Vs. Geeta alias Geeta Devi3, the Court below has taken a plausible view.

Thus, no interference can be made.

5. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Heard, at length and perused the record.

7. The relevant portion of findings of the Court below is reproduced for ready reference:

9. In Asha Rani Gupta vs. Sri Vineet Kumar (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the proposition of denial of title of plaintiff and denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, such a denial simpliciter does not and cannot absolve the lessee/tenant to deposit the due amount of rent/damages for use and occupation, unless he could show having made such payment in a lawful and bonafide manner.

10. In Mohd. Raza and another vs. Geeta alias Geeta Devi (supra) the Hon’ble Apex court observed that plea of tenant that concerned person is absolute owner of property and also filed suit for specific performance against plaintiff. Filing of suit is clear admission regarding ownership of plaintiff. Defendant cannot be said to be owner till passing of decree of specific performance in her favour and will be continued as tenant only. Therefore, statement regarding ownership of

2 2022 (4) ALT (SC) 97 (SB)

3 AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4826

plaintiff in written statement rightly treated as admission of defendant and passing of decree on admission, proper.

11. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the respondents/defend