HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1201 OF 2010 Dated: 19.3.2010 Between: M/s. Sri Sai Syndicate, a Apartnership rep., by its Managing Partnr Miss. Rupali Dilip Mukkawar ..Petitioner And 1. Hyderabad Cut Piece Cloth Merchants Association, rep., by its Secretary, Kapoor Chand Gupta, having its office at No.21-1- 663, Ricabgunj, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1201 OF 2010 ORDER: Challenging the order, dated 26.02.2010 in I.A.No.132 of 2009 in R.C.No.350 of 2005 passed by the learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. The 1st respondent herein is the landlord and the 2nd respondent herein is the tenant and the petitioner is stated to be a sub- tenant. The landlord filed the above RC seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule mulgi. While so, the revision petitioner herein filed the application in I.A.No.132 of 2009 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, read with Section 10(6) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking to return and reject the main RC. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a member of the 1st respondent-society and all the disputes between members of the society have to be resolved under Section 23 of the Societies registration Act and that respondent No.2 herein is a member of the 1st respondent-society and the 2nd respondent herein is a partner of the petitioner-firm. On the other hand, the respondents opposed the above application. The Court below having observed that a plaint can be rejected only on the basis of the contents of the plaint and no other documents or pleadings of the case can be taken into consideration for rejection of the plaint, dismissed the above application. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been preferred. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The main contention that was sought to be raised before us is that the lower Court has not heard the petitioner. However, the order itself goes to show that inspite of availing number of opportunities, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 22.2.2010, the matter was posted for orders. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-landlord also submitted that there was no representation and hence, the matter was treated as heard the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a sub tenant of respondent No.2 and its membership was not admitted by the 1st respondent-society and therefore, the matter has to be referred to the Arbitrator. There is no material on record that a request has been made before the Court below to refer the matter to the arbitrator. Apart from that, except the contents of the plaint, no other material can be taken into consideration for rejection of the plaint as rightly observed by the Court below. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 19th March, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1201 OF 2010 19th March, 2010 p