SHAIK MANSOOR Vs. SOFIA HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the orders passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A. No. 31 of 2010, dated 20-02-2010, whereby and whereunder the order passed by the learned I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in R.C. No. 190 of 2008, dated 28-10-2009, has been confirmed.

(2.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner is disputing the title of the respondent herein and that the sale deed through which the respondent purchased the property is of house bearing No. 6-3-668/10 to 13 whereas the schedule mentioned property is 6-3-668/14 and therefore the respondent herein is not the owner of the premises. It is also his contention that the revision petitioner was set ex parte on 07-07-2008 and that he filed an application in I.A. No. 231 of 2008 in R.C. No. 190 of 2008 to set aside the ex parte orders, however, the said application was dismissed on 01-10-2009 and thus no opportunity was given to the revision petitioner to contest the RC. It is also his contention that the revision petitioner is the tenant of one Sree Ramulu.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court, after taking into consideration the fact of affixing the notice to the door of the petitioner and also after ascertaining the fact of service of notice by registered post with acknowledgment due, set the petitioner ex parte. It is also his submission that the appellate Court has given cogent reasons for dismissing the appeal. It is also his submission that the copy of the sale deed filed by the petitioner is misleading, since the plan attached to the original sale deed has not been filed only to mislead the Court. It is also submitted that the mother of the petitioner herein filed a suit against the respondent herein wherein she has admitted that she is the tenant of the respondent herein.