IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

O.S.No. 99 of 2012.

Between:-

Mohd. Yakub … Plaintiff

And

Mohd. Ramzan … Defendant

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 1 OF C.P.C. FILED

BY THE DEFENDANT

The defendant humbly pleads as hereunder:-

1) All those plaint averments, which are specifically

admitted herein by the defendant are true and correct
and the rest of the pleadings in the plaint are deemed
to have been denied by this defendants, the plaintiff
is put to strict proof of the same.

2) The suit is not maintainable either in law or on the

facts and deserve to be dismiss with costs, the
plaintiff suit does not deserve for any consideration
much less to seek the plaint relief as alleged in the
plaint.

3) In reply to para No.I and II of the plaint, which deals

the description of the parties and which needs no
specific reply.

4) In reply to para No.III & IV of the plaint, it is true

that the agreement was executed on 06-02-2011 for 11
months only commencing from February, 2011 and son
after completion the plaintiff shall vacate the
premises and handover the vacant possession to the
defendant in respect of the schedule property. As such
there is no oral terms in between the parties to the
documents, except expressly incorporated the terms in
the agreement and there is no such terms much less the
…contd
 P-2

alleged mentioned terms ‘a’ to ‘f’ in the page No.2 of

plaint at any point of time. The terms which are
alleged in this para are the self styled terms of the
plaintiff and which are sweet imaginations of the
plaintiff to plead the same for brought into existence
for the alleged setup claim suit under reply. The rest
of the contents in this para are specifically denied.

5) In reply to para No.V of the plaint the allegation that

the plaintiff is paid the rent till January, 2012 as
claimed in this para is false and incorrect, hence
denied. In fact the plaintiff is due rent from
November, 2011 onwards and after filing of the suit
send the rent for the February, 2012 through money
order and under the guise of the temporary injunction
order maintaining the possession by depriving the
plaintiff. The rest of the contents in this para
answered accordingly.

6) In reply to para No.VI of the plaint, the allegation

that the plaintiff spend the two lakhs amount for doing
business as alleged is false and incorrect. The
plaintiffs relied photos will reveals the plaintiff
business and for the purpose of suit proceedings the
plaintiff created a alleged setup claim by alleging the
invested huge amounts and showing the same to get a
wrongful gain in proceedings suit under reply.

7) In reply to paras the plaintiff allegations in this

paras are tissue are lies and absurdities and self
securing make believing to the Hon. Court the alleged
dates mentioned in the paras are imaginary and pleaded
the same to get a wrongful gain suit under reply. The
contents in this paras are specifically denied.

8) It is submitted that at out set of the case, the

defendant humbly submits without prejudice rights of
case that:-
 P-3

a) It is submitted that in the month of December, 2011

agreement period has been lapsed and in the month of
January, 2011 the plaintiff was asked to vacate the
premises since the defendant and his family want to
establish his own fruit business in his own mulgi since
his entire family wants to develop the business in the
own premises i.e., schedule property demanded the
plaintiff to vacate the premises after completion of
period. The plaintiff initially agreed and all of sudden
changed the attitude and file the suit obtained the
injunction order and maintaining the possession, infact
the plaintiff is not paying the rent from November, 2011
onwards and after filling of the suit send the one month
rent in the month of February, 2011 through money order
and subsequently issued the notice to furnish the bank
account when the defendant insisted for the arrears and
to vacate the premises got issued the notice dt:19-04-
2012 and maintaining the illegal possession with tenant
at sufferance over the schedule property.

9) The plaintiff is not entitle to continue the possession

over the property since the schedule property is
required in bonafide nature to the defendant for the
aforesaid reason and to harass the defendant and the
plaintiff mould the issue into litigation and filed the
suit to deprive the defendant. In view of the agreement
period is completed the plaintiff is not entitle to
continue the possession and by suppressing the same
with a false and alleged events and misrepresented the
fact before the Hon. Court filed the suit and under the
guise of the interim orders maintaining the possession.
The plaintiff is not entitle the relief of injunction
for not to evict without due process of law, there is
no agreement for continuation of the possession over
the schedule property, thus the plaintiff cannot
continue the same with a false and baseless reasons.
 P-4

Thus the plaintiff is not entitle the perpetual

injunction against the true owner i.e., landlord.

10) The suit valuation is incorrect.

11) The suit is barred by limitation.

12) The plaintiff is not entitled for the plaint reliefs.

13) The plaintiff is the tenant in sufferance and not

entitle to continue the possession under the guise of
false setup claim and if decree is passed, loss will
cause to the defendant and plaintiffs will enjoy the
possession by depriving the owner.

14) The plaintiff has no prima facie and balance of

convenience and not entitle the suit relief.

Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon. Court may be

pleased to dismiss the suit with costs, in the interest of
justice.

DEFENDANT

VERIFICATION:- I, the above named defendant, do hereby

declare that the contents of the above written statement are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,
hence verified and signed on this 7th day of June, 2012 at
Hanumakonda.

DEFENDANT
ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANT.
G. MURALIKRISHNA RAO,