ORDER:

Heard Sri Sheelam Ashok Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Mohd. Naveed Ghiyasuddin, party-in-person representing Respondents No. 1 and 2 and perused the material available on the record.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in I.A No 1004 of 2019 in O.S No 768 of 2018. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 r/w. Section 151 of the C.P.C seeking rejection of the plaint.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the learned Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The factual backdrop giving rise to the present revision, in brief, is as follows:

a) The Respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs instituted suit vide O.S. No.768 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking eviction, recovery of arrears of rent, damages for alleged illegal use and occupation, and other consequential reliefs in respect of the suit schedule property.

b) In the said suit, the petitioners filed I.A. No.1004 of 2019 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action, the suit was barred by limitation, the issue relating to jural relationship had already attained finality in the earlier Rent Control proceedings, and no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had been issued prior to institution of the suit.

c) It was further contended that Document Nos.2, 3 and 6 filed along with the plaint were certified copies of documents pertaining to R.C. No.466 of 2006, while the outcome of the said proceedings had been deliberately suppressed by the plaintiffs. The said application was opposed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 by filing a counter along with supporting documents through a receiving documents petition.

d) Upon consideration of the rival contentions, the learned Trial Court, dismissed I.A. No.1004 of 2019, vide order dated 03.10.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants contends that the learned Trial Court mechanically dismissed the application without considering the specific objections raised by the petitioners regarding limitation, absence of cause of action, and maintainability of the suit. According to the petitioners, the suit filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent is ex facie barred by limitation, inasmuch as the plaint itself discloses that the petitioners allegedly defaulted in payment of rents from the year 1980 onwards, whereas the suit came to be instituted only in the year 2018, purportedly on the basis of a notice alleged to have been issued in the year 1999.

5. It is further contended that the plaint is conspicuously silent as to how the suit is within limitation and does not contain any specific averment indicating the exact date on which cause of action arose, and that by way of clever drafting and suppression of material facts, the plaintiffs attempted to create an illusory cause of action solely with a view to harass the petitioners.

6. The petitioners further contended that the suit itself was not maintainable in the absence of a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which constitutes a mandatory prerequisite for filing a suit for eviction. It is also contended that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the suit schedule property had long ago been acquired by the Housing Board and leased out to the petitioners long ago, and therefore, the plaintiffs lacked any subsisting cause of action wh