THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Civil Revision Petition Nos.2331 and 2348 of 2023

COMMON ORDER

Since both the Civil Revision Petitions raise common issue, and the respondent in both these cases being common, both the CRPs are being disposed of by this common order.

2. C.R.P.No.2331 of 2023 is filed by the defendant in the suit aggrieved by the order dt.31.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.144 of 2023 in O.S.No.1885 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. The aforesaid suit is filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff for eviction of the petitioner/defendant and for mesne profits.

3. C.R.P.No.2348 of 2023 is filed by the defendant in the suit aggrieved by the order dt.31.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.177 of 2023 in O.S.No.1884 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. The aforesaid suit is filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff for eviction of the petitioner/defendant and for mesne profits.

4. The respondent in both the CRPs is the petitioner in the underlying interlocutory applications and plaintiff in the above suits before the trial Court.

5. The respondent herein had filed the subject interlocutory applications, viz., I.A.Nos.144 and 177 of 2023 in O.S.Nos.1885 and 1884 of 2023, respectively, against the petitioners herein under Order XV-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) against the revision petitioners/respondents/defendants in the suits to strike of the defence, as they failed to pay the rent amounts since

13.01.2020.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.S.Sudhakar, learned counsel on caveat for the respondent in C.R.P.No.2331 of 2023 and perused the record.

7. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the petitioners herein initially have taken on lease the suit schedule property consisting of 1600 and 1080 square feet for a period of 5 years and 2 years, respectively, from the respondent herein, who is described as the owner/landlord of the subject land, by entering into rental agreements, commencing from 1999 and 2012; that the leases were renewed from time to time and the last rental deeds were executed on 11.07.2018; and that the petitioners herein had paid rents till January, 2020.

8. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that originally the Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, by order dt.10.01.1963 had leased out Acs.47.00 guntas of land in Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District, to the Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited (CIE), Balanagar, for a period of 51 years for the purpose of developing an industrial estate by entering into lease agreements; that on coming to know that the respondent herein is not the real owner of the subject land, inasmuch as the land belongs to the Government of Telangana, the petitioners stopped paying rents; and that the original lease of 51 years granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by order dt.10.01.1963 having expired on 31.12.2025 and the Government by proceedings dt.13.02.2016 having directed the Commissioner to the General Manager of TSIIC and MRO/Tahsildar to resume possession of the subject land, the respondent cannot claim himself to be the owner of the subject land leased out to the petitioners for him to claim rents from the petitioners.

9. Petitioners further contend that the respondent herein had illegally possessed the land/plot bearing A-19 forming part of CIE, Balanagar, which is subject matter of L.G.O.P.No.552 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petition filed by the respondent herein to implead himself in the aforesaid O.P., was dismissed and the said order having been confirmed up to the Supreme Court, the respondent cannot continue to claim himself to be the land/owner of the subject property fo