1. Heard Mr. Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel for petitioner; and Mr. Venkatesh Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 19.09.2025, in I.A.No.57 of 2024 in R.C.No.8 of 2024, passed by the Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Secunderabad.

3. Vide the impugned order; the Principal Rent Controller dismissed the I.A.No.57 of 2024 filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking rejection of the plaint as the same is barred by limitation and that there is no cause of action against the respondents.

4. The petitioner herein is respondent in R.C.No.8 of 2024. The respondents herein have filed R.C.No.8 of 2024 under Section 10 (2) (i) of the A.P. Buildings (lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2005 for eviction and possession of the suit schedule property along with costs and consequential reliefs. The respondents are the sons of Mr. T. Dayanand. The respondents are said to have been tenants in the suit schedule property owned by the petitioner since the year 1979. The respondents having entered into a tenancy agreement with the petitioner stands established from the document No.1 filed along with eviction suit which was nothing but a perpetual lease deed dated 03.09.1979.

5. According to the petitioner, till the recent past the respondents have been paying monthly rent to the petitioner and the document produced by the petitioner would establish the jural relationship of landlord tenant, which exists between the petitioner and the respondents. According to the petitioner, the relationship of landlord tenant between the petitioner and respondents was since the time of their father. According to the petitioner, it was the petitioner who was depositing the property tax for all the intervening period.

6. It is contended that as there were certain disputes that arose between the petitioner and respondents, an agreement for sale dated 08.02.1987 was executed. The said agreement for sale was entered into by the respondents in their individual capacity and where certain conditions to be fulfilled were imposed. Subsequently, when certain disputes again arose in between the parties, another suit, viz., O.S.No.2332 of 1989 was filed by the petitioner herein before the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad seeking for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 08.02.1987. Thereafter, upon entering into a Memorandum of Compromise dated 26.03.1997, the suit, O.S.No.2332 of 1989 was compromised vide Judgment and Decree dated 26.03.1997. Meanwhile, the respondents filed a rent case before the Principal Rent Controller, at Secunderabad vide R.C.No.250 of 1989. However, the said case was dismissed by the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, against which an appeal was preferred before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, vide R.A.No.299 of 1994. However, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.04.1997.

7. Based on the said proceedings, the respondents herein filed a rent case viz., R.C.No.8 of 2024, praying from the Court to direct the petitioner herein to vacate and handover the vacant peaceful possession of the petition schedule property to the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an application, viz., I.A.No.57 of 2024 in R.C.No.8 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to reject R.C.No.8 of 2024 on the ground of res judicata.

8. It is the contention of petitioner that from the material available on record and also the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there should not be any hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that for the reason that petitioner had earlier approached the same forum and without getting an order on merits and upon dismissal of R.C.No.250 of 1989 by the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, the respondents after preferring an appeal have withdrawn the appeal, viz., R.A.No.299 of 1994; therefore, in the light of withdrawal of the appeal, viz., R.A.No.299 of 1994 that too unconditionally, the respondents herein would be estopped from filing a fresh rent control case. That it was in this context that the petitioner raised the objection under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 vide I.A.No.57 of 2024 in R.C.No.8 of 2024. Thereafter, the Trial Court, after hearing on the above application and also the specific contentions that have been raised by the so-called landlord and tenant, had rejected the above application on the ground that all the contentions raised more particularly in respect of limitation. Whereas, according to respondents, there was no inter se dispute between the parties and that the original lease deed executed was by the father of respondents was one which was executed on 03.09.1979.

9. The Trial Court had primarily rejected the petition filed vide I.A.No.57 of 2024 in R.C.No.8 of 2024 for the reason that the said application is one which needs to be considered and construed under the then prevailing circumstances and also taking into consideration only the averments and contents in the plaint and not the objection taken by the respondents in their reply.

10. At the same time, when we peruse the plaint and the averments thereof, what is clearly evident is that the petitioner herein is respondent in the said Rent Control Case, viz., R.C.No.8 of 2024 which was filed by the respondents herein under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2005 seeking for eviction of petitioner from the petition schedule property. The said case was filed in the year 2024. Upon notices being issued to the respondent, the respondent (petitioner herein) entered appearance and filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for dismissal of the Rent Control Case on the ground that : (a) the case being barred by limitation; (b) there is no cause of action against the petitioner; (c) the respondents have no locus standi to contest the case; and (d) the case is hit by the principle of res judicata.

11. The said objection filed by the petitioner was registered as I.A.No.57 of 2024. To the said I.A., the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their counter-affidavit denying all the contentions specifically while narrating the entire factual matrix of the case. In the said counter-affidavit, the respondents have specifically stated that for determining a petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, it is only the pleadings of the plaint / suit / case that has to be read. It was further contended that for the purpose of deciding a petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, averments not made in the plaint / suit / case cannot be relied upon, nor can a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 be decided. Further, the respondents have also highlighted the contents of the very Rent Control Case to be specifically indicating the title, ownership and cause of action. The case filed by the respondents also specifically refer to how petitioner had entered into the premises through the previous tenant and had been paying rents in between to the respondents so far as prima facie establishing the jural relationship between the parties is concerned; and based upon all this, the respondents have sought for rejection of I.A.No.57 of 2026 which is a petition filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

12. Having gone through the contentions put forth on either side and on a perusal of the records and also the findings narrated in the impugned order, it would clearly reflect that the learned Trial Court had, so far as non-disclosure of cause of action and also the respondents not having locus standi to file the Rent Control Case, held that the cause of action need not be clearly reflected in one paragraph as such but it has to be culled out from the entire pleadings of plaint / suit / case. In the Rent Control Case itself there is a specific averment that petitioner herein in the past had paid rents to the respondents and he had also specifically narrated the aspect of default in making payment, both of which would prima facie reflect the cause of action which led to the respondents in filing the eviction suit. Even otherwise, it is by now well settled proposition of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, it is only the averments made in the petition which are relevant. The pleas / grounds / objections taken by the respondent (petitioner herein) in the written statement or counter or by way of a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by itself would not be sufficient for accepting the contention and to dismiss the suit / plaint / case under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

13. As regards the second ground raised by the petitioner that of the Rent Control Case being barred by limitation there is a categorical finding given by the Trial Court that period of limitation does not apply to the case, since there is no period of limitation prescribed the question of filing a Section 5 petition for condonation of delay does not arise. In addition to the aforesaid justifiable ground of the Trial Court, what is also by now a settled proposition of law is that the aspect of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and for the purpose of deciding the question that the case is being barred by limitation it would be necessary for the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective contention; and since it is a mixed question of fact and law, it cannot be decided as a preliminary objection. Therefore, on this ground also the findings arrived at by the Trial Court does not warrant interference by this Court.

14. The third objection that the petitioner had raised was the ground of res judicata. The question of res judicata again is a matter which can only be decided after recording of evidence wherein the person who raises the objection of res judicata would have to lead proper evidence which would be subjected to rebuttal by the opposite side and after appreciating the evidences in support of objection of res judicata and the evidence which comes on board, then alone can the aspect of res judicata be decided.

15. In the given factual backdrop of the case, this Court does not find any strong case being made out by the petitioner particularly exercising the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to hold that the findings given by the Trial Court in dismissing the above application, viz., I.A.No.57 of 2024 in R.C.No.8 of 2024 to be either bad in law or contrary to evidence. There is no challenge to the impugned order so far as aspect of jurisdiction of Trial Court is concerned. There is also no objection as regards the competence of the Trial Court is concerned, neither is there any dispute so far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned.

16. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that a strong case has been made out by the petitioner calling for interference to the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 in I.A.No.57 of 2024 in R.C.No.8 of 2024, passed by the Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Secunderabad. The Civil Revision Petition thus being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.