The High Court · 2025

Smt. Dr. G.K.Surekha Reddy, Wo Dr. G.Kiran Kumar Reddy, Aged about.43 Years, Occ. Doctor, RJO. Plot No 76, House No 5-40, 1ll Floor, Bhanu Enclave, Main Road, JJ Nagar, Yapral Post, Medchal Malkajgirr-500087 AlsoAt, R/o Flat No403/A Block, Meghadri Heights, Secundrabad-500087 ...Appel lanUPlaintiff ...RespondenUDefendant Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl B DANANJAYA Counsel forthe Respondent:Ms. MANJARI S GANU The Court made the following: OROER w7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE RENUI{, T YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.628 of .t,',24 ORDER: Ileard B. Dliananjaya, learned counsel for the p': itioner and Ms Manjari S. Ganu, learned counscl lbr the respondent l" rused the entire rccot d. 'fhis re"'ision petition is directed against the order r l. in I.A i\o.1535 of 2022 in O.S.No.62 ol- 2022 on the filt ated 09.08.2023 of the Prirrc ipal Senior Clivil Judge at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Matkajgi ' District ('trial Court'). wherein a petition fllcd under Order XV- 1 of C.P.('. tbr deposiring of arrears of rent of Rs.28,05,285/- and to c'r rtinue to deposit rnonthl) rent from December, 202 I onwards at Rs'71'9:: /- per month till the diiposat of the suit, ivas dismissed. i. 'l'he brief facts of the case are that the revision p :titioner/plaintiff llted suit virlc O.S.No.62 of 2022 fbr eviction and reccr :ry of an'ears of rent against the respondent herein with respect to pren' res bearing shop No.2, (part) in Ground Floor, in Block B, with built .rp area of 1800 Sq.feet, (out ofTotal area of extent 2725 Sq.Feet) includi rg common areas witli undivided share of land adrneasuring 50 Sq.Yards Sq.YaLds), in plot No.117 and l18 in Sun'ey No l93 rr (out of 2l I3.38 ''Kalyan's Mahi iOm ( omplex' situated at Sri Devi Kal.'-an Estates in Ya I al Village . under i i I I t, RY,J cRP 628 2024 Alwal GHMC Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. There was a lease deed for a period of 11 months executed in the year 2012 fot payment of rent of Rs.25,000/- per month with enhancement of rent at lo%o pet annum. The said premises was used lor running a beauty care establishment in the name of 'V CARE BEARUTY & SPA' by the respondent. The suit is flled in the year 2021 alleging that the respondent is not paying rents when the rental value in the area is about Rs.80,000/- per month. In that regard, after perusing the entire record and hearing both sides, the trial Court passed the following ordcr in I.A.No.1535 of 2022: "14. ...There is no material available on record to arrive to a conclusion that the Respondent due rents and also as to the quantum of rent amount, therefore at this premature stage of the proceedings without recording evidence no finding can be given as to quantum of rent and arrears of rent, as the amears amount and due amount is not established by the Petitioner accordingly the Respondent cannot be directed to deposit the money under Order XV-A of CPC. Accordingly the point is answered against to the Petitioner. I 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs."

4. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred pleading that there is admission by the respondent that she could not pay rents due to Covid-|9 lockdown and that a false statement is made that the revision petitioner has locked the premises and did not allow the respondent to run her business. Further', it is pleaded that the jural I 2 i ;. : i! I I RY,.I cRP 628 2024 relationship is acknorvledged, the possession is also acknc't 4edged' but the relief of depositing of arrears of rent is dismissed by the trie L Court'

5. DLrring arglltrellts in revision, leamed counsel 1lr the revlslon petitioner submitted that there is no dcnial of rent to be pai t and the atrears ofrenttobepaidandtherefore,thereisseriouserrorcorr-r:littedbytlretrial Courl in dismissing the I A. under revision'

6. Per contra. thc case of the leamed counsel fbr the r rspondent is that the premises was vacant since September, 2019 and therc I lre' the question of liability to pay anears of rents from September' 2019 dc :s not arise' In view of the rivat contentions, the trial Courr I etd that there is 7. dispute about thc quantum of rent to be paid and wl:ther or not the respotident was in possession of the leased premises frorn ieptember' 20 L9' onwar<is and theletbre, no order can be passed for dept siting rent under Order XV-A of C.P.C.

8. When the petition hled under Order XV-A and co Lnter are perused' it is seen that the revision petitioner is claiming dep:;it of rents from December,20l7 onwards up to November,2021, beginn ng at Rs'40'263/- per month with addition of enhanced rent for eve' successivc year' Whereas, the respondent has denied the averments of ttrr alfidavit without specilying the last rent paid by her' However, in the cor nter' it is pleaded ,\ 1 RY.J ..) cRP 628 2024 that the respondent is not in possession of the leased premises from September', 2019. When there is an issue of f-act about the possession of the leased premises from September, 2019. even though, the quantum of rent is not specifically denied, no order can be passed for payment of arrears ofrcnt for period lor which the respondent was not in occupation of the leased premises. As such, there is no intinnity in the order passed by the leamed trial Court and there arc no grounds to interlere with the same.

9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 09.08.2023 in I.A.No. 1535 of 2022 in O.S.No.62 <tf 2022 on thc hle of trial Cour1. There shall be uo ordcr as to costs. Misccllaneous ) applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUW REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Malkalgiri 2. One CC to SRI B DANANJAYA, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to MS. MANJARI S GANU, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL ry/ 4 HIGH COURT DATED:1910912025 ORDER CRP.No.628 of 2024 ( IHE S T4 I 0 rrFS 2020 Z * I * DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 0,ttt \s'