High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT..IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No,117 OF 2019 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the appetlant defendant, being aggricved by the judgment and decree, dated 21.OL2019 passecl in O.S.No.418 ol 2O16 by rhe learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the trial Court").

2. The parties are addressed herein as they were arrayed in the suit belore rhe trial CourL [or thc sakc oi conveniencc and clariry

3. The case of the plaintif belore the trial Court is that the plaintill rs the landlad\ and owrLer ol Lhe propertv on first floor aCmeasuring 2973 squarc fcct in the premises bearing Munrcipal No.5-9-30/21 Lo 25, Basheer Bagh, Hyclerabad and the defendant is her tenant and thal- thc plaintiff was taking rents from the defendant and that br. r,irtr:c of the Iease decd dated 01 .08. ,l986 executed by the defendanL, she was entitled to 57o increase in the rent after every 11 months, but the defendant failed to pay rhe enhanced rcnl. The plaintiff has calculaLed thc arrears of renrs and the monlhly rcnt of Lhc said premises totally from the defendant was Rs.7,600/- per month and then, after the expiry of ) ETD,J CCCA No.117 2019 11 months 57o increase was to be made and th it the defendant faiied to pay lhe monthly rent as per the enhz nced rate. The plaintiff has requested several timcs to clear off tlLe arrears of rent which got accumulated but the defcndant failed to clezrr the same and thereby, the plaintiff issued notice for evictLon and also for payment of arrears of rent. 4 . The defendar-rt has filed his u,rilten state nLcn t stating thaL the suil is not maintarnable. She admitted tht. relationship of landlady and tenant betu,een the plair-rtiff and the defendar-rt but shc has dcnied the cnhanccment o[ renls ald a]so [he claim lor arrears of rent. It is her case that she was g,aving thc rents regularly and that there has been an oral ag reement not to enhance the rent. She contencled thaL sltc madc some improvcments in the suit schedule property anrL completed the partly unfinished construction at the suit schedu le premises and therefore, there was an oral agreement of not enhancing thc rent and she denied the arrears of rents alleged by the plaintitf.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial c(,urt has framed the following issues for trial. Whether the plaintiff is entitled l-o sec k ,:victior-r of defendant liom the schedule propertl as prayed fo r? 3 ETD,] CCCA No.117 2019 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent and damages from defendant as prayed for?

3. To what rclicP"

6. At the time of trial, PW I was examined and gol marked trxs.A I Lo A5. On behali ol tire delcnrlant, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B 1 to 826 ri,ere marked

7. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed lhe suit in lavour o[ the plain tiff granting the relief of eviction and also pa),rnent of arrears of rcnts, directing the defendant to hand over the vacanI possession of the suit schedule property and also to pay the .Lrrcars of rents. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the unsucccssful defendant has prcfcrred the present appeal.

8. Heard the submissions of Smt. P. Bhavana Rao, learned counsel for the appellants. No representation on behatf of the respondent.

9. The learned appellant counsel has submitted that the defendant has already vacaLed the premises but the arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff is too harsh on hcr and that she is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. Shc further argued that the defe ndant has paid thc rents without fail, every month -\ EiD,] CCCA No.1l / 2019 ).?nf. and that she is not due to any extent and thereforc. the decrce of the trlal Court with regard to thc arrears o[ rer I rs not propcr. She argued that there was an oral agreemenL betv ecn the plaintiff and defendant noL to enhance the rent and tl-at the lcase agreement u,as pcrpetual in na[ure and so the der ision of the trial Court wiLh regard to lhe enhanced rate o[ rcnL is without any basis and thercforc, prayed to sct aside the judgr tt'nL and ciccr.ee passed by thc rrial Courr.

10. Based on the submissions of learncd c ounse:l lor the appellants, tltis Court lrames the lollorvirrg points for consideration 1 2 Whcther the plaintift is entitlecl to -L'(.over thc arrears of rent from the defendant'2 Whcthcr the judgment and de<;rct: , rl the tnal Court is sustainable unde r Iarv and ir.r thr: facls?

3. To what re lieP 1 1. POINT NO,1 a) It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff had onc suir sche(lule property whicl-r is let out to defendant for an area ol 2973 square fcet and the defendant was paying rents to the p aintiff and that initially plaintiff was receiving monthly rcnt ol I.ts.'Z,60O/- fron-r the delendant and the rent was to be enhanced by 5,zo in evcry 1 1 7,t a' 5 ETD,] CCCA No 117 2019 months and the defendant has not enhanced the rent at that rate and they were at default lrom December, 20 15. Further, pW I contended that the defendant is liable to pay rent for the period of 1O.04.2O13 till 31.01.2014 GA Rs.24,697 /- amounting ro Rs.2,46,97O l- but the defendant has paid only Rs.60,OOO/ - and thus, she is liable to pay Rs. 1,86,970/ - and the rent lor the period from Ol.O2.2Ol4 titl 3t.12.2Ot4 was payable @, Rs.25,932/- amounting to Rs.2,85,2521 - b:ut the defendant has paid a part amount of Rs.66,0001-, thus, thc balance to be paid by the del-endant is Rs.2,19,248 l-. [n thc said fashion she calculated the arrears of rent till the date of suit and claimed that the defendant is liable to pay a total amount of Rs.7,30,O90/ tou,ards arrears of rent from 10.04.2013 till the date of suit. She filed a statement of account Llnde r trx.A2 shou.ing the calculation with regard to the arrears of rent. b) Il is elic jted during the cross examination of pW 1 that she has not executed any fresh lease deed in favour of defendant with regard to the suit schedule property but that as per the lease deed under Ex.A1, it is automatically renewed. c) A perusal of trx.A 1 discloses that initially the lease amount that was agreed upon with regard to the 2973 Sq.ft was Rs.6,OOO/- only and at page No.3 of the lease deed there is a I , l ! I i I I I I i ! l t I I I I I 6 ETD,J CCCA No 117 2019 i-\ clause as follorvs: "ln case the parties agreed to tt e renewal of the lease, the lessee will be liable to pay the rent lor the renewed period @ Rs.6,300/ per month". Thus, there .r,as a clause of enhanccment of rent in the lease deed after tl-re inLrial lease period of 11 monLhs. trx.A4 is the reply notice sent by tl-rc clefendant. A perusal of the same reveals that the entire premises of 2973 sft rvas leased out to defendant on monthly rent of R.;.6,OOO/_ u,ith a caulion deposit of Rs.36,000/ -. Thus, it is elicitecl that the total premises of 2973 Sq.feet was given in leasc ro defenclant (rl Rs-6,000/ - pcr month. d) [n [he cross examination of DW1, he admitte d the docurrent under trx.A1 and he also admitted that monthly rcr.rt is exclusive of clectricity charges, water cess and municipal ta;, and he lurther admitted that monthly rent is payablc by Srh of e,,ery month and that as per Lhe agreement, the monthly rents are to be increased by Sok in every 11 months but he added that cr:rLly they havc agrced not to enhance the rent. DW2 has also rdmit ted ir.r his cross examination that as per the lease agreenien t there is a clause for enhancement of rent but has claimed that they have orally agreed not to enhance the rent and that t rc plain tiff has accepted for the same. No evidence is adduced b.. tl-re defenclant to disprove the clause mentioned in Ex.A 1 or to prove her l ETD,] CCCA No.117 2019 contention that there was an oral agreemenl of not [o enhance the rent. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendants that there was an oral agreement not to enhance lhe rent and that she is not liable lo pay any arrears of rents. ln the absence of any evidence placed on record, it is e) difhcult to dislodge the clause mentioned in the lease deed and thus, it is hcld that Lhe defcndant is lierblc tu pay the enhanced rate of rents, as disclosed from Ex.A2 whereit't the plaintiff has calculated the arrears of rent which is due by the defendants' f) DWs I and 2 have not specifically denied Ex A2 and there is no material placed by the defendant to show that she paid any amount of the arrears as claimed undcr Ex.A2 tf at all she has paid any amounts, she could have placcd evidence on record to prove their payments, Thcrefore, in thc absence of any such evidcnce, it is held that the plaintilT is entitled to rccover the arrears of rent as disclosed by Ex.A2. Point No l is answered accordingly. t2- POINT NO.2: ln vier.r' of the reasoned findings arrived at point No I , it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court do 8 ETD,] cccA No.117 2019 a ,i,t! not need any interfcrence and the same are held tc bo sustajnable in law and under thc facts and circumstances of thr: case ]3, POINT NO.3: In thc rcstrlt, Lhe appeal is dismissed ui,hoirling rhe judgment and decrcc, dated 21.01.2019 passed ir O.S.N..4Ig of 20 16 b1, thc lcarrrcd I Ser.rior Civil Judgc, Cir1. Crvil Colrrt, lltderabad. No cosr s. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pcnding in tl r is appu.rl shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/. B. SATYAVATHI \JOTNT REGTSTRAR TECTIoN oFFIcER To,

1. The I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Smt P BHAVANA RAO Advocate IOPUCI 3. Two CD Copies 48/ HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 JUDGMENT CCCA.No.117 ol 2019 ,L-.,1 .:, ':.-) t, . :r 4 SEP flffi I I I t..,,' -7\ , | . \.\t:-\ /., ,1 '..'7 -' 2-' -r'' DISMISSING THE APPEAL a) 61 ( b HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Clry CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 117 oF 2019 Between: 1 2 J 4 5 Srnt Kaushiliya lvlanghnani, w/o. Gordhandas lvlanghnani, (Died per LR's 2 to 5) aged about 79 years, housewife, resident of H.No.5-9-30121-230A, 4th floor, Satguru Complex, Hill Fort, St.No.2, Basheelbagh, Hyderabad - 500 036. Gordhandas Manghnani, S/o. Late Kishinchand tvlanghnani, Aged about 85 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.5-9-30/2'1 to 36A, Hill "Fort Street, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004. Sunil Gordhandas Manghnani, S/o. Gordhandas Manghnani, Aged about 59 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.5-9-30/2'l to 30A, Hill Fort Street, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004. Vinod Gordhandas Manghnani, Sio. Gordhandas Manghnani, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.5-9-30/21 to 30A, Hill Fort Street, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004. A.nju A_Parwani, Wo. Anand Kumar, D/o. Gordhandas tVlanghnani, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Household, R/o.tl.No.'l-8-92 to 102111306, Amar Apartments, Penderghost Road, Secunderabad - 500 003. (Appellant Nos.2 to 5 are brought on record as LRs of deceased sole appellant as per Court Order Dated : 06.02.2025 vide lA No. 1 of 2025 in CCCA No. 117 of 2019.) APPELLANTS/Defendants AND Smt Shamsheerunnisa Be years, resident of H.No.8, gum, w/o. Md.Kutubuddin Khan, aged about 80 Paigah Colony, Phase ll, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ./ j, * ;-h,, Appeal filed Under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the ju<igment and decree 21 .01.2019 in O.S.No.41B of 2016 on the file of the Court ol I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. ORDER: lhis appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusirrg the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree ofthe Lower Court and the material papers irL the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. P. Bhavana Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent, This court doth Older and Decree as follows I . That the appcal is dismissed upholding the Judgment and Decree dated 2l.01.2019 passed in OS No. 41 8 of 2016 onthe file of I SeniorCiviI Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad.

2. 'fhat there shall be no order as to costs. To 1 . The I Senior Civil .Iudge, City Civil Court, I'Iyderabad 2. Two CD Copies. & Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI INT REGISTRAR t,' l i( lt)to o+f \LEP- HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 DECREE CCCA.No.117 ot 2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL g b