The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY QIVIL REVISION PETITIO N No.217 of 2025 ORDER: 'lhis Civil Revision Pcti[ion is filed assailing Order dated O:).Og.2021 in t.A.Nu.22.t ol 2O2O in O.S.t'to.ZS68 of 2O2O, passed by Lhe lcarned III-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, rr,,herein the application filed by the respondent unde r Orclc'r XV-A R/u,. Scctior-r I51 <;f CI)C, u,as dismissed.

2. Hear<l Sri Achr-rthanand, learned Ccrunsel for the pctitloner itnd Sri (l.l)urushotham Rao, learnr:d Counsel for rcspondent 3 Petilirrner herciu is dclenclant and rcspon,lcnl is plaintiff in the suit

4. Brief lacts of the case rvhich lcd to filing of Lhe present revision peLition are that rcspondent hercin has iiled a suit ujde O.S.Ncr.2868 of 2020, againsr thc petitioncr for eviction, recovery of arrears of rents and for damages, that petitioner entercd appearance; Lhat pending adjudicatior_r of the suit, respondent l-ilcd an application uide 1.A.No.225 ot 2O20 under Order XV-A R/u,. Sectron I51 of CpC, seeking clirection to the \ l 2 petitioner to deposit Rs-2,40,500/- toivards arrears of rcnt from March, 2018 to Octobcr, 2O2O @ Rs.7,5O0/- per month and future rents to thc credit of thc suit, pending disposal and the petitioner filed the counter rcsisting the appliqation. However, the trial CourL uide impugned Ordcr dated 03.O9.2024, allowed the application directing the petitioner to pay arrears of rent of Rs.2,40,500/- @ Rs.7,5O0/- per month from March, 2O18 to October, 2O2O and a sum of Rs.3,45,OOO/- from Novcmbcr, 2O2O Lo Scptember, 2024 and further d irectcd thc petitioner to pay monthly rents lrom Oclobcr, 2024 @ Rs.7,5OO/- per month till the disposal of thc suiL.

5. In the afhdavit hled in support of thc application under Order XV-A of CPC, it rs averred that respondent is the owner of the suit schcdule premises and thc same was 1et out to the petitioner herein on monthly rent of Rs.5,OO0/- in the month of February, 2OO6, excluding water, electricity and maintenance charges and that peLitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1O,00O/- towards interest frec security deposit; that tenancy was oral and the rent has been enhanced from time to time and the present rent is Rs.7,50O/-; that petitioner committed default in payment of monthly rents from March, 2Ol8 to October, 2O2O, therefore, respondent issued lcgal notice on 06.lO.2O2O, under Section -) 106 of T.P Act, terminating the tenancy; that petitioner received the notice and issued reply notice on 27.1O.2020, disputing the payment of monthly renLs and the amount of security deposit paid by hirn; that respondent got issued rejoinder notice dated

04.ll.'2O2O, denying Lhe quantum of rents and also got issued corrigendurn notice clated 19 .l1 .2O2O.

6. Petitioner tiled the counter affidavit resisring the said application ancl averred Lhat he is thc te n:rr Lr o[ thc suit premiscs on monthly rerrr of Rs.3,500/-, excluding electricity and maintcnancc charges and that he has paicl Rs.15,OO0/- towards interest lree refurndablc deposit and that agent of the respondent collected rcnts regularly including the rent for the month of St:ptember, 2O2O; Lhat as the agcnt 01' thc respondent rclused to rcceivc the rent for the monlh of October-, 2O2O, he rcmitted thc rent through Moncy C)rder and the same was refused and Money Orders sent subsequently q,cre also refused intentionally and delibcrately to makc thc petitioner as defaulted; and that as per the provisions of Secrion g(1) to S(S) o1- Telangana (Lcasc, Rcnr and trviction) CorrLrol Act, 1960, petitioner h:Ls issued a notice to the respondcnt calling upon him to furnish the Bank Account Number and the name of the Bank to enable him to dcposit the monthly rents, but the i 4 respondent refused to furnish the same and further denied the dues, arrears of ren[s and prayed to dismiss the application

7. The trial Courl on due considcration of pleadings and contentions put forth by both the parties, allowed the application uide impugned Order dated 03.09.2024, aggrieved by the same, prescnt rcvision peLition is filed. Learncd Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

8. trial Court without propcrly appreciating the facts and circumstanccs of the case, allowed thc application. Hc further submitted that the pctitioner has not committed any default and all the efforts made by the pctitioner to pay the rents through Money Order and also Lo dcposit the rcnt in the Bank Account were refused and resistcd by the respondent, as such there is not default on the part of the petitioner, this aspect was not appreciated by thc trial Court. lle also stated that the trial Court erroncously observed that suit premises wiil fetch rent of Rs.7,SOO/- per month, without placing any material when there is serious dispute with regard to quantum of rent. He further submitted that the trial Court has not conducted any enquiry while determining the quantum of rent as Rs.7,SOO/- per month J 5 and thus, tl'rc impugncd Order is unsustainable zrnd is liable to be set aside.

9. Per contra, learned Counsel lor the respondent $/ould submit t hat thc suit pre mises arc let out in the month of February,2006 and the same rvas enhanced lrom time to time and it u,as Rs.7,50O/- per month as on the date o[ filing of the suit in thc ,- ear 2O2O. Ilc iurthcr submittcd that tlte contention oI the pctirioner Lhar cornmittcd rent is only Its.3,S0O/_ is lncorrec[ and rent cannot be static for a perioci of 14 years, therefore, the trial Court has rightly allori,ed the applicatron by duly consider-ing all the facts and circumsLances of the case in proper perspeclive and thus pra5,ed to dismiss the revision pctiLion. I 0. Perusal of the record would disclose that adnrittedly, the re is no disputc u.ith regard to the rclationship betrvecn the parties as landlord and tenarit, howcver the arrears o1- rent are in clispute. According to the respondent monthly rent is Rs.7,500/_ and monthly rent is due from March, 201g, whereas, according to the peLitioner monthly rent is Rs.3,500/_ and he paid rent up to September , 2O2O. The trial Court considering the contentions ol both thc parties as well as the docume nts placcd on record 6 i.e., Exs.P1 to P8 on behalf of thc respondent and Exs.R1 and R2 on behalf of the petitioncr, held that contcntion of the petitioner that monthlv rcnt is Rs.3,500/- is not bclievable. The trial Court further observcd that the suit premises is situaled in a prominent place of arca of Bashce r Bagh and that thc monthly rent cannot be static and relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.B.Chander Vs. Bolakrishna Rao Charitable Trust,t ar-rd has come to conclusion that the contention of the petitioner that monlhly rent is Rs.3,50O/- basing on Exs.R1 and I?2 $'.ls uoL acccptable and ultimatelr' held that monthly rcnt is I?s.7,500/- as contcnded by thc respondent and thus, allowcd the application. 1 1. It is also relevant to noLc that Lhe trial CourL has meticulously examinecl trx.R 1 , relicd upor-r by Lhc pctitioner in support of his contention that monthly rent is Rs.3,500/- and observed that entries made in the said notc book are lrom the year 2006, but all thc pagcs in the said notc book look very fresh and that there are no traces of absorption of ink in any of the entries made in the said note book, though they are made since 2006, even after lapse of 18 years and thus, the trial Court did not rely on the said notc book. I 20 t6 scc onlinc Hyd 30 I 7

72. ln M.B.Chander Vs. M/s.Balo,krishna Rao Charitable frzst, the Hon'ble Apex Court hetd that Court is competent and is under an obligation to make summary enquiry ur-rder Order XV-A Rule 2 of CPC, as to the rent payable for the prcmises and arrears due by the Lenant, otherwise, it amounts to encouraging the unscrupulous lenants who intend to avoid paymcnt of rents lor the premises in their occupation for decades together which would certainly result in substantial loss to the landlord during the pendency of the eviction suit or proceedings based on account of abortive pleas raised by the unscrupulous tenants.

13. In considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has considered facts and circumstances of the casc in proper perspective and also examined the material placed on record in detail as well as the location potentiality of the sur[ premises and has come to proper conclusion. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the Order passed by the triat Court, warranting interference by this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted two months time for payment of arrears of rents from today. 8 {

14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYASREE PUTY REGISTRAR D ECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2. J. 4. The lll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. One CC to SRl. R A ACHUTHANAND Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. G PURUSHOTHAM RAO Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies PM/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2210712025 ORDER CRP.No.217 ot 2025 1Hr... siA 16, \1o e' J ) ! .-. \ 2 e JUL 2025 i a,1 "t l'- - i-r .:-.:,1i . , i, .'. _/,' \i:_-_--Z DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION I I I G, U