The High Court · 2025

Counsel fon the Petitioners in both CRPs : SRt P SRI HARSHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents in both CRPs : SRI MOHAIIIMAD,ADNAN The Gourt rnade the following: COMIIION ORDER THE HON'BLE JT'STICE B.R.MADHUST'DIIAIT RAO crvlL RErrrslolt PEIITIoN Itos.lotT,AItD 2230 oF Mg COMMON ORDER:

1.1 CRP.No.IOLT of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 14.Og.2O22 passed in I.A.No.889 of 2O2L in O.S.No.2227 of 2O2l by the learned III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. L.2 CRP.No.2233 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated L4.O9.2O22 passed in I.A.No.2tT of 2O2l in O.S.Nor.2227 of 2n2t by the learned III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad In CRP.No.1O17 of 2023:

2.1 Petitioner herein is the petitioner - defendant, respondent herein is the respondent - plaintiff in I.A.No.889 of 2O2l in O.S.No.2227 of 2O2L, which is filed under Order XII Rule VIII read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to call the respondent - plaintiff to produce the documents i.e.,

1. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 07.O4.2OO9.

2. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executcd between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 05. 1 1.2O 13. \ 2l t2 BRMR, J CRP.Nos.1017 aad 2233 ol 20.23 -

3. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement execuGd between Defendant and Plaintiff dated O5.1O.2O14.

4. X,erox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendarrt and Plaintiff dated O5.O9.2O15.

5. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated O5.O6.20 17.

6. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated O5.O5.2O 18. In CRP. No.2233 of2023:

2.2 R:titioner herein is the respondent - defendant, respondent herein is ttre petitioner - plaintiff in I.A.No.217 of 2O2L in O.S.No.2227 of 2021, which is filed under Order XV-A of the Ciyil Procedu.re Code to direct the respondent - defendant to deposit rents in resp€ct of the suit property to the credit of the suit or pay the sa:rc directly to the petitioner - plaintiff for the period of April 2O2O ta June 2021 total amounting to RS.3,38,0OO/- and continrre to pay t:re same pending disposal of the suit. Grounds in CRP.No. lOlT of 2023:

3. k:arned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge ought to have called for the documents, which are essential to the claim of the petitioner - defendant. On the other hand, ttre learned Trial Court relied on the documents in I.A.No.217 of 202L filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XV-A of CPC to 3l t2 BRMR, J CRP.Nos. 10 17 aad 2233 of 2023 deposit rents in respect of the suit schedule property relying on unregistered documents. The impugned order is seU-contradictory in nature and completely antithetical to the probabilities of the case and prayed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.869 of 2O2I in O.S.No.2227 of 2O2L, dated. 14.O9.2022. Grounds in CRP.No.223 3 of 2023:

4.1 karned counsel for the petitioner submits that'the learned Judge ought to have seen that the original cicpies of the documents were essential to support ttre claim of the petitioner - defendant. The learned Trial Judge failed to consider that tlie respondent herein - plaintiff has admitted in his counter that the ducrrments of rental deeds were unregistered, insufhcjently stamped and inadmissible in evidence as they filed the xerox copies, then the Court ought not to have marked the documents and ought not to have granted relief of deposit of arrears of rent.

4.2 The learned Trial Court ought to have seen that E:<.Pl are the counter foils of rental receipts which were nrarkd without production of the original receipts and moreover the respondent herein - petitioner - plaintiff failed to produce tlrc original documents. Ex.P4 is the returned postal cover, which itself is a proof that the petitioner herein - defendant has not received the notice sent by the respondent herein - petitioner - plaintiff. Whep \ \ 4l12 BRMR,J CRP.Nos.lOlT and.2233 of 2U23 a, the petitioner herein - defendant is in occupation over the suit schedut.e property, the question of return of the registered postal cover with an endorsement that ho such person is residing in this house' does not arise and prayed to set aside the order in I.A.No.2ll7 of 2O2t in O.S.No.2227 of 2021, dated 14.09.2022.

5. L,sarned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no perversilty or illegality in the orders passed by the trial Court and no interfenence is called for. In support of his contention, he relied on the clecision of the Supreme Court in the case of Meera Devi (D) thr. LR Vs. Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) thr. LRst and prayed to dismiss both the CRPs.

6.1 R:titioner in CRP.No.1O17 of 2023 - defendant has liled I.A.No.889 of 2021 on 17.12.2O2t to grant leave to call the respond.ent therein - plaintiff to produce the original documents as stated supra in paragraph No.2.1, which are vital and essential for proving the case as Xerox copies of the documents are submitted in the Court.

6.2 R,:spondent - plaintiff has filed counter and contended that the case set up by the defendant is that he was a tenant but in the year 2009 he entered into an agreement of sale and ended up paying :more than what was the sale consideration, s/ that the ' zozs lzyr,LD 129 (sc) 5l t2 BRIfR, J cRP.t{@.1017 .!td 2233 of2o23 defendant has to prove the agreement of sale and not jural relationship, which is the burden of the plaintiff. The defendant has not set up any case as to in what way these documents are relevant for deciding the application.

6.3. The learned Tlial Court after considering t]:e af,lrdavit and tJre counter filed therein dismissed the petition holding that for adjudicating ttre petition under Order XV-A the documents which were sought by the petitioner - defendant is not necessaq/.

7.L Respondent in CRP.No.2233 of. 2023 is the petitioner - p.laintiff who frled LA.No.217 of 2o2l under Order 15-A of CPC to direct the respondent therein - defendant to deposit rents for the period from Apil2O2O to June 2O2L tote.Jrirrg Rs.3,38,0O0/-.

7.2 Respondent therein - defendant has frled counter and contended that he has paid an amount of Rs.17,13,3461- fa tJre plaintiff which is more than the agreed sale consideration and furtherorrtended that the tenancy was for I 1 months which was extended from time to time by mutual consent by enhancement of rent at the rate of 5%o for future renewal period of every 1 1 months-

7.3 The learned Trial Court after going through the material in I.A.No.217 of 2O2l allowed the applicati on uide or&r dated L4.O9.2O22 directing the respondent therein - defendant {petitioner trerein) to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs.3,38,OOO/- from April .\ \\ \ 6l t2 BRMR, J CRP.Nos. lO 17 a.od 2233 oI2023 - 2O2O b Jrur:e 2A2L within four months from the date of order and further directed to continue to pay the future rents of every succeecling month on or before 10ur of every month till disposal of the main suit.

8.1 Respondent in both the CRPs is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rents and the prayers made thereon are, i) pass a judgment and decree for eviction against the defendant thereby directing the defendanr to vacate arrd d':liver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to Ore plaintiff. ii) tc' pass a judgment and decree against the person and property of the defendant for recovery of arrears of rents of Rs.3,38,OOO/- from April 2O2O to June 2O2l with interest at the rate of l8o/o per annum from the date of suit till the d<:cree is fully satisfied with cost. iii) for recovery of arrears of property tax for a sum of Rs.44,312/- wittr interest at the rate of l8% per annum from the date of suit [O8.O6.202ll tilL t]re decree is fully satisfied with costs.

8.2 Petitioner in both CRPs, who is the defendant in the suit has trled his written statement and contended that on O7.Oa.2QO9 he /./ ,1 7 lL2 BRMR, J CRP.Nos.1O17 end 2233 of 2023 egt€red into rental agreement with the respondent - plaintiff to run Uusiness in the suit schedule property on monUety rent of Rs.7,OOO/- per month, w-hich is payable on or before lotr of every English calendar month in advance with a refundable deposit of Rs.1,00,OOO/- and the other terms and conditions were mutually agreed between the parties, which was reduced into writtng uide, rental deed dated O7.O4.2OO9 which has been in possession of the respondent - plaintiff and a copy of the same is handed over to him. The tenanry was for a period of 11 months which was extended from time to time on mutual consent by enhancing the rent at the rate of 5o/o for future renewal period of every 11 months as such possession is delivered to him to run his business and after commencing the lease on O7.O9.2OO9, the respondent - plaintiff offered to sell the suit schedule propert5r that is 265 sq.fts ,j on the ground floor plus 28O sq.fts on Mezzanine floor to him for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,62,500 l- t}:.at is at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per sq.ft and he has paid Rs.17,13,346/- towards sale consideration which is more than the agreed sale consideration amount and requested the respondent - plaintiff to come forward to register the sale deed in his favour and prayed to dismiss the suit.

9. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This 1 1 8lL2 BRMR, J CRP.Nos. 1Ol7 and, 2233 of 2O23 a) power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a peryerse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kurnaresan - 2025 SCC Online SC 985).

10. It is worth mentioning that the respondent herein - plaintiff has firsit filed I.A.N o.217 of 2021 under Order XV-A of CPC on Og.06.2021 and petitioner herein - defendant, who is the responclent in I.A.NO.217 of 2O2L has filed his counter on O3.O9.2021. During the pendency of the aforesaid I.A., respondent therein (i.e, in I.A.NO.2|7 of 2O2l ) - defendant has field I.A.No.889 of 2021 on 17. 12.2021 for production of documents, for which the petition,:r in I.A.No.2l7 of 2O2l - plaintiff has filed counrer on 07 -O3.2J22. The learned Trial Court has passed separate orders on L4.O9.2')22 allowing the application filed under Order XV-A of CPC and disrnissed the application filed under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC.

11.1 Ir: I.A.No.217 of. 2O2!, Exs.Pl to P4 and Rt ro R3 are marked It is the case of the respondent herein - plainriff that rhe defendant was inducted as a tenant in the year 2OO9 on a monthly rent of Rs.8,200/- and the tenancy was extended on the basis of unregislered rental deed for a period of 11 months ane/ the / 9lL2 BRMR, J CRP.Nos.lOlT acrld2233 of 2O23 qu€lntf,rm of rent was enhanced was under mutual understanding, the tenanry was lastly e*ended on O5.06.2018 under unregistered rental agreement and ttre quantum of rent was fixed at Rs.24,2OO / -.

11.2. Ex.Pl are tlre counter foils of rental receipts 55 in number, Ex.P2 is the office copy of the legal notice, Ex.P3 is the postal receipt and Ex.P4 is the'rettrrned postal cover. Ex.Rl are the bunch of rental receipts, Ex.R2 is the property tax and Ex.R3 is the notice of demand. L2. It is an admitted fact that the respondent herein - plaintiff is the landlord andttre petitioner herein - defendant is the tenant and it is dso admitted fiact thd.t the petitioner herein - defendant is still in occupation of the suit schedule property and running business in the said premises. The rental receipts filed by the defendant (petitioner herein) under Ex.Rl in I.A.No.2l7 of 2O2L show that he is a tenant of the suit schedule propergr.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent herein - plaintiff has filed ttre documents which were marked before the trial Court in I-A.NO.217 of 2O2L, which shows the rent as Rs.24,2OO/- per month uide one of the receipt dated O5.O5.2O19 stating that the amount is received from the tenant - petitioner herein - defendant. As the rental receipts frled by the parties goes to show that since \ \ '\. \ rolL2 BRMR, J CRP.Nos. 1O17 and, 2233 of 2023 r-

05.05.2019 rent for the schedule premises is Rs.24,2OO/-. As stated supra, the jural relationship between respondent herein - plaintiff with that of the petitioner herein - defend.ant as landlord and tenant is established and the rent paid by the petitioner herein - defendant as on 05.O3.2A2O is Rs.24,2OOl- and the respondent herein - plaintiff has claimed arrea::s of rents from Aprit 2O2O to June itO2L that is till filing of the suit [08.06.20211. 14- 'fhe learned Trial Court has also considered the contention of the petitioner - defendant that he has entered into agreement of sale with regard to the suit schedule property but there was no pleadings with regzrrd to the filing of the suit for specific perforrnance in paragraph No.32 of the order in I.A.No.2LT of 2022 dared 14.o9.2022.

15. ln Meera Devi's casel the Supreme Court observed that faiture of respondent - tenant to comply with the interim order passed by the High Court regarding pa5rment of rent during pendency of appeal before the Court, amounts to default, respondent - tenant, therefore, directed to be evicted forthwith.

16. llhe above said decision is not applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that the cRPs are assailed against orders passed under Order XVA of CPC and Order )O([I Rule 8 of CpC. tLl12 BRMR, J CRP.Nos. 10 17 end 2233 of 2O23

17. The learned counsel for the respondent herein - plaintiff submits that petitioner herein defendant has made false statement in his alndavit and he is liable for punishment. tt is left open to the respondent herein - plaintiff to take recourse under law.

18. . The documents marked in I.A.No.2l7 of 2O2l established the jural relationship of the tandlorfl and tenant followed by the rental receipts showing the last pa5rment of Rs.24,2O0/- on March 2O2O. Lg. The learned Trial Court has assigned cogent reasons while allowing I.A.No.2l7of 2O2L in paragraph Nos.33, 35 to 39 of its l T order dated L4.O1.2O22 similarly the learned Trial Court has also assigned reasons for dismissing the I.A.No.889 of 2O2L in paragraph Nos.lo and 11 of its order dated 14.09.2022. As the relationship of the landlord and tenant is established and the trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly \ l allowed the application (I.A.No.2l7 of 2021) filed by the respondent herein plaintiff to deposit rents and also dismissed the application {I.A.NO.889 of 2o2ll filed by the petitioner herein - defendant to call for the documents from the respondent herein - plaintiff. This Court feels that there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court and no interference is called for. Petitioner has not made out any case to set aside the \ \ i t 12lt2 BRMR, J CRP.Nos. l0 17 alad 2233 of 2023 ( impugrred orders in both I.As and these Civil Revision Petitions lacks nrerits, deserves no consideration and the same are liable to be disnrissed and are accordingly dismissed.

20. Irr the result, CRP.Nos. LOLT and 2233 of 2Ci23 are dismissed withoul. costs. Interim orders if any stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous application/s stands closed. /,TRUE COPY'/ SD'- A.V.S. PRASAD OEPUW REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRI P SRI HARSHA REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two OD Copies I i l ADK/PSiL HIGH COURT DATED:23110t2025 COMMON ORDER S i. .) i i 1 6 [{:B 2026 CRP.Nos.101Z AN D 2233 ot 2023 * DISMISSING THE BOTH CRRs WITHOIJT COSTS 6 a.\a;