Mohd Anwar v. Smt. Nusrath Fatima (Died)

[ 3378 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3429 OF 2023 Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble lll Junior Civil Judge City Civil Court, at Hyderabad in l.A.No. 260 Of 2022 ln O.S No 1135 Of 2022 dated.2410712023 in the interest of lustrce and equity Between Mohd Anwar, Sio Mr. tt/ohd Afzal, Aged. 50 years, R/o. H. No 5-7-540, Nampally Dargah Hyderabad, And R/o. (Old No 11-5-117). Red Hills, Hyderabad, T.S Occ: Business, H.No 11-5-1 'l7E ..PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2/DEFENDANT No.2 AND

1. Smt. Nusrath Fatima (DIED), (Died Per LRs)

2. Khaja Muzaffer Hussain Ansari, S/o.Mr. Mohd Jatfer Hussain Ansari, Age.83 yeais, Occ Retired Chief Engineer, Govt of Telangana, R/o. 10-3-806, Vijay Nagar Colony, Hyderabad- 500057.

3. Mohammed Liaqat Ansari, S/o. Mr. Khaja Muzaffer llussain Ansari, Age 58 years, Occ. Engineer, R/o.578 Stapleford Terr, Mississuage, Ontaria, Canada- L5R3J3.

iri Shansul Lateef, Age 56 years, Dastagiri Villa, Vijay Nagar Colony4, Naushina Khursheed Occ. Housewife. R/o.

500057

5. Mubsher Hussain Ansarr, years,.Occ Engineer, R/o 5000s7

6. Mehvesh Afrina, Wo.

Occ: Medical Doctor. R/o USA Wo. Dastag R/o 187/3RT, S/o Khaja Muzaffer Hussain Ansari, Age 5'1 10-3-806/A, Vlay Nagar Colony, HyderabadSyed Zubat Mehdi, Age. 44 yeers, 2313. Saint Croix Ct, Richardson, Texas- 75082,

(Respondent 2,3,4 and 6 are represented by their G.p.A holder i.e., repoindent no.5) 7 Mohd Basith, S/o. Mr Mohd Afzal, Aged. 45 years, Occ: Business, ffq .f , Ng 5 7-540, Nampaily Dargah Hyde"raOaa, nni nio H r.fo tl:S_i'liie ( Otd No. 11-s-112), Red Hiild. HydirabaiJ, T S --' (Respondent No.7/defendant No.1 is not a necessary party to this petition). ...RESpONDENT No.7/RESpONDENT No.i/DEFENDANT No.1 lA NO: 1 OF 2o23 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased pleased to, stay the operation of the orders passed in r.A.No. 260 of 2022 in o.s. No 1135 ol 2022 dated 24.0r.2023, pending disposar of the civir Revision Petition in the interest of justice and equity Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. MOHD NASEER UDDIN Counsel for the Respondents: ------- The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.R.P. No. 3429 of 2023 ORDER:

Heard Mr. Mohammed Nasir Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2.

The instant civil revision petition has been hled challenging the order dated 24-07.2O23 passed in I.A.No.260 of 2022 in O.S.No. 1 135 of 2022 by the learned III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3.

Tide impugned order d,ated 24.07.2023, the trial Court has directed the petitioner/defendant to clear off the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.4,76,O00/- within a period of one month from the date of order, i.e., 24.07 -2023- So also, there was a direction for payment of monthly rent at the enhanced rate of Rs.SO,OOO/- per month amounting to Rs.8,50,0O0/- from Apnl,2022 to July,2023, again within a period of one month from 24.07.2023 and with a further direction of clearing off the future rents of Rs.SO,OOO/- per month with effect from August, 2O23, payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to protect as if there was some dispute on the aggrieved rent and tJle oral agreement that was entered into between the tenant and the landlord i.e., the

petitioner and the respondent during the covid period taking the factual situation that prevailed during the pandemic period. 5.

However, on a query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner so far as why there was default in payment of the admitted rent for the period beyond March, 2O2O, till date the petitioner was not in a position to give a satisfactory response or zrn explanation to the same. Thus, this Court is of the frrm view that there does not seem to be any bonafide on the part of the petitioner now to turn around and challenge the order dated 24.07.2023, that too after a period of almost five months i.e., November, 2023. 6.

The Civil Revision Petition, thus being devoid of merits, deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. However, considering the fact that the civil revision petition is being rejected today subject to the petitioner honoring the order of the trial Court d,ated 24.07.2023 by 3lst December of 2023, the trial Court is ordered not to strike down the right the petitioner/defendant No,2 till 31st December of 2023. However, it is made clear that in the event if the petitioner fails to honor the order dated 24.OT.2023 by 3l-12.2023, the order passed by this Court granting extension of time till 3L.12.2O23 would automatically lose its efficacy and the order of the trial Court would become enforceable.

/i Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs SD/- V. KAVITHA AssrsrANr(EGlsrRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Hon'ble lll Junior Civil Judge City Civil Court, at Hyderabad

2. One CC to SRI MOHD NASEER UDDIN, Advocate.[OPUC]

3. Two CD Copres RM c$?

-l

I I HIGH COURT DATED:08112t2023 E STA 14:

q oo o 1 2 riB 202{ * Dt.:,t)/ .) f,

ORDER

CRP.No.3429 of 2023 REJECTING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS