IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND (2nd) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.723 of 2010 Between: L Krishna … Petitioner And: K Suresh Babu … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.723 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 29.09.2009 in IA No.549 of 2009 in OS No.923 of 2008 on the file of the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner/defendant under section 151 CPC, praying to dismiss the suit as infructuous, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit for recovery of possession of the schedule building of which the petitioner is a tenant. According to the respondent, he required the petition schedule building for personal occupation and tenancy is month to month and therefore, he issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and as there is no response to the said notice, he filed suit for eviction. The petitioner filed written statement contesting the suit. It is stated that the trial of the suit is in progress. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the cross-examination PW.1 admitted that he has not issued any notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The question as to whether or not the petitioner issued any notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and whether it was valid, are all matters to be considered by the trial court on conclusion of the trial and the same does not call for consideration in the present revision. The petitioner filed IA No.549 of 2010 on the ground that subsequent to filing of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff received rents and therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant is still subsisting. The question as to whether or not there was valid termination of the tenancy and the petitioner continued to be a tenant is also a matter to be considered by the trial court only on evidence that is to be adduced during the course of trial. According to the petitioner, the tenancy was duly terminated and whatever amount is received subsequent to filing of the suit, was only by way of damages for use and occupation. 5. In the circumstances, the question of dismissal of the suit on the ground that it has become infructuous does not simply arise, as several contentious issues raised by both parties still survive to be considered and determined in the course of regular trial. The impugned order dismissing IA No.549 of 2009 filed by the petitioner/defendant does not in any way call for interference by this court. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 02.08.2011 bss