THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 9 6 9 OF 2009. O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 04-3-2009 passed in I.A.No. 809 of 2008 in OS.No. 2991 of 2008 by the learned IX-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner-defendant under section 10 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to stay of all proceedings in OS.No. 2991 of 2008, pending disposal of OS.No. 1614 of 2008, the present civil revision is filed. 2. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are as follows: It is stated that the petitioner is the defendant in OS.No. 2991 of 2008, which was filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree, directing him to vacate the residential Flat No.G-2, in H.No. 12-2-709/4 of Sri Venkatasai Residency, Navodaya Colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad by handing over physical and vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and also to pass a decree directing him to pay mesne profits/damages at Rs.12,000=00 per month from August 2008 till handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also to pass a decree for full costs of the suit proceedings. It is further stated that he filed I.A.No.365 of 2008 in OS.No. 1614 of 2008 seeking to grant exparte temporary injunction against the respondent and the same was allowed on 25-9-2008. Further the respondent therein filed written statement and the same has been contesting OS.No.1614 of 2008 and the said suit is coming up for trial. It is further stated that the suit schedule property was given for rent for a period of three years and without completion of the said period, the respondent with malafide intention seeking his eviction from the suit schedule premises, therefore, he filed OS.No. 2991 of 2008. It is also stated that the respondent knowing fully well that the court had allowed the petition under Order-39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., vide orders dated 25-9-2008 in I.A.No. 365 of 2008 in OS.No. 1614 of 2008, had filed this vexatious suit to abuse the due process of the court. Further the respondent also raised similar contention in OS.No. 1614 of 2008 and prayed for the dismissal of the suit and the same is pending adjudication. It is further stated that the parties to OS.No.2991 of 2008 as well as OS.No.1614 of 2008 are pending adjudication before the same court and the parties as well as issues in the said suits are one and the same. It is stated that he never committed any default in payment of rent or any arrears of rent outstanding but it is the respondent, who refused to take the rents with a malafide intention to vacate him from the suit premises before completion of three years. Without completion of three years period, the present suit for eviction is not maintainable and amounts to gross abuse of due process of the court. Therefore, he prayed to stay of all further proceedings in OS.No.2991 of 2008, pending disposal of OS.No.1614 of 2008. 3. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the respondent denied the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the respondent averred that the above interlocutory application is misconceived and not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner filed OS.No.1614 of 2008 in respect of injunction simplicitor and OS.No.2991 of 2008 is filed by him for eviction/ejectment and mesne profits. Therefore, in both the suits issues and cause of action are distinctly different and the matter in controversy is also not the same and both the suits have to be dealt independently. It is averred that the petitioner is an Advocate by profession and filing frivolous petitions one after the other only in order to evade payment of huge arrears of rents and maintenance charges and the above I.A. is also one such speculative application. It is averred that the petitioner is not entitled to contest the above suit without payment of arrears of rent and maintenance charges and his right of defence should be struck off and appropriate orders in that regard are required to be passed. It is further averred that the very denial of arrears of rent by the petitioner is a malafide act for oblique motives and denied the averment that the suit schedule property was given for rent for a period of three years and without completing the said period the suit filed for eviction is not true and correct. Further there is no contract by the respondent for letting out the suit premises and the suit premises was let out on a month-to-month tenancy basis. Hence, there are no merits in the above application and the same is an abuse of process of law and that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed in the above I.A. and prayed to dismiss the same. 4. On the basis of the rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and also illustrated as to when Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable has dismissed the Interlocutory application filed by the revision petitioner-defendant on the ground that both the suits has to be decided independently on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant. 6. Heard Sri J.P. Rao, who is an advocate appeared before this court as party-in-person. 7. The main grievance of the Revision Petitioner is that before expiry of three years period, the respondent has filed the suit seeking for recovery of the suit schedule property and mesne profits. The Revision Petitioner further seeks to contend that the issues in both the suits are one and the same and the parties to the said suits are one and the same and also the reliefs. He further contended that the respondent knowing fully well that the court had allowed I.A.No. 365 of 2008 in OS.No.1614 of 2008 the respondent had filed this vexatious suit to abuse the due process of the court. Further the respondent also raised similar contention in OS.No. 1614 of 2008 and prayed for the dismissal of the suit and the same is pending adjudication. 8. Having heard the party-in-person and also on perusing the impugned order as well as the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it appears that the trial court found that both the suits has to be decided independently on the basis of evidence to be adduced by both the parties. The trial court has clearly observed that the present suit in which interlocutory application has been pressed into service, the very question involved for determination before this Court is the validity of quit notice issued by the respondent, entitlement of respondent to recover possession of the suit schedule property from the petitioner and determination of mense profit for the purpose of occupation after the expiry period specified in the quit notice. When once the trial court found that the issues in both the suits are distinctly different and they have to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties, this Court express its disinclination to interfere with the impugned order. The finding of the trial court is based purely on merits and no indulgence is called for. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. 11-09-2009. I s L