AHMED NAWAB ALLADIN Vs. HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of an item of immovable property at Azamabad, Hyderabad. He executed a lease deed dated 16.7.1975, in favour of the respondent in respect of the suit schedule property, for a period of 99 years. Clause 16 thereof provided for sale of the property in favour of the respondent, subject to the condition stipulated therein. The respondent filed OS No. 2072 of 2011 in the Court of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for the relief of specific performance under the relevant clause of the lease deed. On receipt of summons in the suit, the petitioner filed IA No. 825 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the plaint. His contention was that the respondent has invoked only the first paragraph of clause 16, and if read in conjunction with second paragraph, the suit would be without cause of action. He pleaded that it is only when the execution of sale does not take place, by the end of lease period, that the respondent can make the payment and insist on conveyance of the property. It was urged that the suit, as it stands now, cannot be maintained in law, since it is without cause of action. The respondent opposed the I.A., by filing a counter. It was stated that the clause 16 of the lease deed provides for sale of the property, even before expiry of the lease, and the first paragraph of clause 16 was adequate to provide a cause of action in this behalf. It was also pleaded that a plaint can be rejected only when it does not disclose "cause of action", as distinguished from the existence of cause of action. Both the parties relied upon certain precedents.

(2.) THROUGH its order dated 28.2.2012 the trial Court dismissed the LA. Hence, this revision.

(3.) SRI S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that once it is not disputed that clause 16 of the lease deed provided for sale of the property, the plaint cannot be said to be without cause of action. He contends that the respondent is given option to pay the amount, even before the expiry of the lease, and the question as to whether it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to execute the sale deed, needs to be decided in the suit. He submits that the trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter, and it is not a case for rejection of a plaint.