Telangana High Court
Kumbham Srinivas Reddy vs P.V.B. Sai on 22 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CRP.No.3119 of 2024
Between:
Kumbham Srinivas Reddy,
S/o Purushotham Reddy and
another.
... Petitioners
And:
P.V.B.Sai, S/o Trivikrama Rao
and another.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 22.09.2025
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether her Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_______________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
2
LNA, J
CRP.No.3119 of 2024
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CRP.No.3119 of 2024
% 22.09.2025
Between:
# Kumbham Srinivas Reddy,
S/o Purushotham Reddy and
another.
.... Petitioners
And:
$ P.V.B.Sai, S/o Trivikrama Rao
and another.
....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the petitioners: Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy
Learned senior counsel appearing for
Sri A.Muneendhar Reddy
^ Counsel for Respondents: Sri L.Venkateshwar Rao
? Cases Referred:
1. (1997) 5 SC 329
2. 2001(2) RLR 136
3
LNA, J
CRP.No.3119 of 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Civil Revision Petition No.3119 of 2024
ORDER:
This Revision is filed assailing the order dated 30.07.2024 passed in IA.No.492 of 2022 in OS.No.588 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri A.Muneendhar Reddy, learned counsel-on-record for petitioners, and Sri L.Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondents.
3. In nut-shell the facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, as averred by the petitioners in the plaint are that they are absolute owners of Villa No.15, Villa Greens, situated at Gandipet, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject Villa') having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.7726 of 2022 dated 16.06.2022; that their predecessors-in-title leased the subject Villa to respondents for residential purpose under lease agreements dated 4 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 04.12.2013, 09.01.2016, 10.04.2018 and 07.12.2018, the last of which expired on 14.12.2019; and thereafter, the lease period was not extended, however, the respondents requested time upto March, 2022 to vacate the subject Villa, but they did not do so and further, they also defaulted in payment of monthly rents and maintenance charges and taking advantage of Covid-19 pandemic and on continued persuasion, the respondents gave an Undertaking dated 25.06.2020 promising to vacate the subject Villa shortly. However, the respondents without adhering to the said Undertaking, filed OS.No.179 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar and obtained injunction. 3.1. It was further averred that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 13.09.2021 calling upon the respondents to vacate the subject Villa, failing which, they are liable to pay damages @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month, however, the said notice was returned with endorsement 'party absent continuously for seven days'; that the petitioners purchased the subject Villa on the assurances given by the respondents to their predecessors-in-title to vacate the subject Villa, however, the respondents did not vacate the subject Villa as per the Undertaking 5 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 given by them and as such, the petitioners also got issued legal notice dated 08.08.2022 to the respondents to vacate and handover the subject Villa on or before 20.08.2022, failing which, the respondents shall be liable to pay damages @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month from 01.10.2021; that the respondents got issued a reply notice dated 10.09.2022, to which, the petitioners have got issued a rejoinder notice dated 20.09.2022. It was further averred that since the possession of the subject Villa by the respondents became illegal and unauthorized, the petitioners filed OS.No.588 of 2022 seeking to evict the respondents and to put the petitioners in vacant possession of the subject Villa; to direct the respondents to pay damages @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month from 01.10.2021 till the date of filing of the suit i.e., 30.09.2022, totalling to Rs.12,00,000/-, etc.
4. The respondents entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement. While so, during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed IA.No.492 of 2022 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to pass judgment and decree, based on the admission made by respondents, insofar as the relief of eviction is concerned. In the said application, the petitioners reiterated the averments made in the plaint and prayed to allow the application. 6
LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024
5. The respondents filed counter denying the allegations and averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of the application, and further averred that they are in possession of subject Villa since 2013 and as there was some differences of opinion with the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, they filed a suit in OS.No.170 of 2020 along with IA.No.3 of 2020 and obtained interim injunction restraining the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners from interfering with their peaceful possession of the subject Villa without following due process of law. It was further contended that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners have orally agreed to extend the lease for a further period of three years from June, 2022 and they have also promised to give first option to buy the subject Villa to the respondents, if the latter intends to sell the same, but, contrary to the said promise, the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners have sold the subject Villa to the petitioners. 5.1. The respondents further averred that there is no default in payment of monthly rents, as alleged by the petitioners, and the rents were paid upto August, 2022 and in fact, the same were also received and hence, prayed to dismiss the application. 7
LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024
6. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 30.07.2024 dismissed the said application with observation that the application cannot be allowed based on the sole ground of admission of ownership of the petitioners over the subject Villa, since the other facts such as rents and damages payable towards the subject Villa are not admitted by the respondents. The trial Court further observed that the relief of recovery of possession is interlinked with other relevant facts which would be concluded and adjudicated after full-fledged trial of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision is filed.
7. Learned senior counsel appearing for revision petitioners submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application with perverse observations and without properly appreciating the intent and application of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. He further submitted that the observation of the trial Court that the relief of recovery of possession is interlinked to other relevant facts and the same would be concluded only after full-fledged trial is contrary to the settled principle propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Payal Vision Ltd Vs. Radhika Choudhary 1, wherein it is held that in a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant, whose tenancy is 1 (2012) 11 SCC 405 8 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 not protected under the provisions of Rent Control Act, the plaintiff has to only establish the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant and termination of tenancy by lapse of time or by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was further observed that once these two aspects are not in dispute, the Court can pass a decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. 7.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the contention of respondents that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners have orally agreed to extent the lease for a further period of three years from June, 2022, is untenable in the light of the Undertaking dated 25.06.2020 given by the respondents promising to vacate the subject Villa shortly. He further submitted that the contention of the respondents that the predecessors-in-title of petitioners promised to given first option to buy the subject Villa to the respondents is not supported by any document and is contrary to Sections 107 and 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. He further submitted that as respondents have grossly violated their own promise to vacate the subject Villa by March, 2020, after expiry of lease period on 14.11.2019 and also in view of admission made by 9 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 respondents in OS.No.179 of 2020, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit in terms of Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
8. To buttress his submissions, learned senior counsel appearing for revision petitioners relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(1) Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India and others 2 (2) Ashok Kumar Bagga Vs. Rajvinder Kaur 3 (3) Payal Vision Ltd Vs. Radhika Choudhary4 (4) Rajiv Ghosh Vs. Satya Narayan Jaiswal 5 (5) ITDC. Ltd Vs. Chander Pal Sood & son6
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners have orally agreed to extend the lease period for a period of three years from June, 2022 and also received rents from June, 2022 to August, 2022, therefore, the previous alleged admission made by the respondents that they would vacate the subject Villa has no relevance. He further submitted that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners have 2 (2000) 7 SCC 120 3 MANU/DE/0681/2021 4 (2012) 11 SCC 405 5 2025 SCC Online SC 751 6 2000 (53) DRJ (DB) 10 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 offered to give first option to the respondents if the subject Villa is offered for sale and contrary to the said promise, they sold the subject Villa to the petitioners behind the back of the respondents and further, the respondents are not even aware of the said transaction and there is no attornment of tenancy and as such, the application filed by the petitioners is misconceived and as such, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. 9.1. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that the respondents disputed rent and damages payable towards the subject Villa, therefore, the trial Court has rightly observed that the said issues can be decided only after full-fledged trial and dismissed the application, and the petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the Revision.
10. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in S.M.Asif Vs. Virender Kumar Bajaj,7 wherein it is held that the words 'may' and 'make such order....' in Order XII Rule 6 CPC show that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of 7 AIR 2015 SCC 3678 11 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 right and that the judgment rendered based on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that where the defendants have raised objections which go to the root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
11. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material available on record.
12. There is no dispute regarding jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners and the respondents. Admittedly, the lease period of the subject Villa ended by November, 2019, however, on oral requests, the respondents were allowed, by the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, to continue to be in occupation of the subject Villa till March, 2020. Subsequently, the respondents failed to vacate the subject Villa and hence, on continuous persuasion, the respondents have given an Undertaking letter dated 25.06.2020 promising to vacate the subject Villa shortly, but, they failed to adhere to the same and continued to be in occupation of the subject Villa. While 12 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 so, the subject Villa was purchased by the petitioners through registered sale deed dated 16.06.2022, who, in turn, issued legal notice dated 08.08.2022 to the respondents calling upon them to vacate the subject Villa, to which, the respondents have issued reply notice dated 10.09.2022 and the petitioners have issued rejoinder dated 20.09.2022 to it. In those circumstances, the petitioners filed the application to pass judgment based on the admission made by respondents insofar as eviction is concerned.
13. It is the specific case of the petitioners that when there is no dispute with regard to jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners and the respondents and further, when the respondents have admitted that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners are the true owners of the subject Villa, the petitioners having purchased the subject Villa for valid consideration under registered sale deed have stepped into the shoes of their predecessors and acquired all the rights in respect of the subject Villa.
14. It is relevant to note that in the written statement, though the respondents have taken a specific plea that the predecessors-in- title of the petitioners have promised to give first option to them in 13 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 case they intend to sell the subject Villa, except the said mere assertion, no material is placed on record in support thereof.
15. On the other hand, the petitioners are relying upon the Undertaking letter dated 25.06.2020 given by the respondents, wherein they undertook to vacate the subject Villa shortly and further, the legal notice dated 13.09.2021 issued by their predecessors-in-title.
16. It is settled principle of law that by sale of property by the lessor to a third party, the tenancy of lessee gets attorned to the purchaser of the property and the lessee cannot deny the jural relationship of landlord and tenant on the ground that he/she is not aware of transfer of property in favour of a third party.
17. In the present case, registered sale deed dated 16.06.2022 was executed in favour of the petitioners by the lessors of the respondents, consequently, the tenancy stood attorned to the petitioners, and pursuant thereto, the petitioners have also got issued legal notice to the respondents on 08.08.2022, to which the respondents have got issued a reply notice and further, the petitioners also issued rejoinder to the respondents on 20.09.2022, 14 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 which clearly show that there is jural relationship of landlord and tenancy between them.
18. Further, admittedly, the lease period expired on 14.11.2019, however, the respondents continued to be in occupation of the subject Villa till March, 2020, and on repeated demands by the lessors to vacate the subject Village, the respondents have given an Undertaking letter dated 25.06.2020 promising to vacate the subject Villa shortly therefrom. This shows that the respondents are not protected under the Rent Control Act. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Payal Vision Ltd's case (cited supra) squarely applies to the present case as, the facts of the said case are similar to the facts of the present case.
19. However, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M.Asif's case (cited supra) referred to and relied upon by learned counsel for respondents has no application to the present case as the facts and circumstance of the said case are entirely different from the facts of the present case. In the said case, the tenant has taken plea that an agreement of sale was entered by the landlord and he has paid a sum of Rs.82.5 lakhs as advance and a suit for specific performance was also filed. However, in the present case, 15 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 no such plea has been taken by the respondents except the contention that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners have promised to give first option to them in case of sale of the subject property.
20. In the present suit, there is no dispute that the respondents filed a suit in OS.No.179 of 2020 and have admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners. In the counter-affidavit filed in IA.No.492 of 2022, the respondents did not deny such jural relationship, however, they have taken a plea that the predecessors- in-title of the petitioners have orally extended the lease period from June, 2022 to another period of three years.
21. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners purchased the subject Villa under registered sale deed and the respondents have not disputed the validity of the said document.
22. Learned counsel for respondents specifically contended that there is attornment by tenants, i.e., the respondents, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek the relief of recovery of possession.
16
LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024
23. As regards attornment by tenants, there are catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are as hereunder:
24. In Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta Vs. Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogul and others 8, when an identical question as regards attornment by tenant has came up for consideration, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has held as hereunder:-
"It is well settled that a transferee of a landlord's rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act does not require that the transfer of the right of the landlord could take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of the transfer of the landlord."
25. In Ram Saran Sharma Vs. Smt. Kamla Acharya 9, the High Court of Rajasthan, reiterated the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta's case (cited supra) and held as hereunder:-
"Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act does not require service of notice on tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between transferree landlord and existing tenant. Once 8 (1997) 5 SCC 329 9 2001 (2) RLR 136 17 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 title of assignee is complete, the attornment is automatic and not dependent on tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment.
As regards the law of attorment, envisaged under Section 109 of the Act of 1882, it is held that Section 109 of the said Act does not require service of notice on the tenant, on alienation of property, to create relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee landlord and the existing tenant. The transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes and possess all the rights, which the transferor has and the attorment is not a condition precedent, to give validity to the transfer made in favour of the transferee. Section 8 of the Act of 1882 specifically provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith, to the transferee, all the interests, which the transferor is capable of passing in the property, including the legal incidents thereof and such incidents include the rents and profits thereof. Once the title of the assignee is complete, the attomment is automatic not dependent on the tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attomment.
26. In the instant case, the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the subject Villa from the lessors of the respondents. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the instant case, it is to be held that the petitioners stepped into the shoes of their vendors, i.e., lessors of 18 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 the respondents with all rights and liabilities of their vendors in respect of the subsisting tenancy of the subject Villa and that as the title of petitioner is complete, the attornment by tenant is not necessary to confer the validity of transfer and the attornment is automatic and not dependent on tenant's attorning or agreeing to the attornment. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for respondents that without attornment by tenants, the petitioners are not entitled to relief of recovery of possession of subject Villa holds no water and shatters to ground.
27. Further, it is apt to note that in the counter, though the respondents admitted that they have given Undertaking letter 25.06.2020 whereunder they promised to vacate the subject Villa shortly, they resiled from the same by taking a stand that their lessors have orally agreed to extend the lease for a further period of three years from June, 2022, and as such, the Undertaking letter dated 25.06.2020 has no relevance.
28. Thus, it is evident that there is termination of tenancy as early as on 14.11.2019, since the lease agreement has expired by lapse of time, however, the respondents have continued to squat over the subject Villa on the premise that the predecessors-in-tile of 19 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 the petitioner have orally permitted them for the same. It is also relevant to note that the respondents were also served with legal notices by the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners calling upon them to vacate the subject Villa.
29. It is not out of place to note that the respondents herein filed OS.No.179 of 2020 against the lessors, wherein in the plaint they have categorically stated that they have given Undertaking letter dated 25.06.2020 to the lessors. The contents of the said Undertaking letter goes to show that the respondents herein have requested the lessors i.e., the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners to give them some more time to stay in the subject Villa and assured to vacate the house once the spread of Covid-19 virus is stopped. Further, in the plaint in O.S.No.179 of 2020 also, the respondents stated as hereunder:
"The plaintiff has made it very clear that he would vacate the premises once the present Covid-19 pandemic recedes."
30. The above said statements made by the respondents in the suit filed by them would necessarily amount to admission of the expiry of tenancy and their readiness to vacate the subject Villa shortly, as undertaken by them in the letter, dated 25.06.2020. 20
LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 Therefore, these admissions of the respondents attract the provision of Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
31. For better appreciation, it is appropriate to extract Order XII Rule 6 CPC as hereunder:-
"Judgment on admissions.
(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions."
32. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that admission of fact can be either in pleadings or otherwise or may be orally or in writing.
33. Therefore, based on the aforesaid admissions made by respondents in the pleadings averred in plaint filed in OS.No.179 of 2020, the Court may pass judgment based on such admission. However, the trial Court has failed to take into account the same and erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. When the last of lease deeds and the undertaking letter, dated 25.06.2020 given by respondents goes to show that tenancy expired and the same was admitted by the 21 LNA, J CRP.No.3119 of 2024 respondents in their pleadings averred in the plaint in OS.No.179 of 2020, the trial Court has not considered the said aspects and has merely and in fact, has erroneously observed that relief of recovery of possession is interlinked with other relevant reliefs/facts which would be concluded and adjudicated only after full-fledged trial. When the legitimate rights of the petitioners, who came to the Court with clean hands, in respect of the subject Villa are at stake petitioners, it is the duty of this Court to safeguard his rights and interests in respect thereof.
34. For the foregoing reasons, this Revision is allowed and the order dated 30.07.2024 passed in IA.No.492 of 2022 in OS.No.588 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar, is hereby set aside and consequently, IA.No.492 of 2022 stands allowed.
35. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:22.09.2025 Note:
LR copy to be marked.
B/o dr