Telangana High Court
CRP/729/2015 of Neetha Devi, Vs Kota Meenakshi on 30 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.729 of 2015 ORDER: The plaintiff in O.S.No.665 of 2013 on the file of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur (for short, trial Court) is the petitioner herein. She filed the said suit seeking eviction of the
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.729 of 2015
The plaintiff in O.S.No.665 of 2013 on the file of the Court of IIIAdditional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur (for short, trial Court) is thepetitioner herein. She filed the said suit seeking eviction of therespondent. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.251 of 2014seeking a direction to the respondent to pay the arrears of rents fromApril, 2013 to June, 2014, being a sum of Rs.90,000/-, failing which thedefence of the respondent may be struck off. The trial Court, by orderdated 29.10.2014, dismissed the said application on the ground that thepetitioner herself has been refusing to receive the rents sent by therespondent. Challenging the said order, the present Civil RevisionPetition is filed.
2. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is notdenied. The respondent himself stated in his counter that from April,2013 when he offered the rent @ Rs.7,200/- per month, the same wasreturned by the petitioner on every occasion. Thus, the respondenthimself admitted the rent as Rs.7,200/- per month. Since a suit foreviction is filed by the petitioner and the respondent is not denying therelationship, the respondent is under an obligation to pay the arrears ofrents and the admitted rents during the pendency of the suit. Therefore,the order of the trial Court dated 29.10.2014 dismissing I.A.No.252 of2014 in O.S.No.665 of 2013 on the ground that the petitioner herself wasrefusing to receive the rent, is not correct.
3. Hence, the order of the trial Court is set aside and I.A.No.252 of2014 is allowed by directing the respondent/defendant to deposit thearrears of rents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of acopy of this order and shall continue to pay the rent @ Rs.7,200/- permonth on or before 5[th] of every month till disposal of O.S.No.665 of
2013.
4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as tocosts. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Date: 30.12.2015TJMR
______________________________
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J