The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 of cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pteased to suspend the operation of orders passed in l. A. No. 230 of 2023 in O S. No. 4169 of 2022 dated 27-02-2024 passed by the learned X Junior civil Judge, city civit Courts, at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. AADESH VARMA Counsel forthe Respondents: K BALAKRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I : , I i I -*'="-7 IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA AT,ISHETTY CI!'II- REVISION PETITON No.1432 OF 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, Iearned counsel for the petitioners and Sli K.Balakrishna. iearned counsel lor respondent No l' Perused the entire material available on record.

2. This CiviL I{evision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 27 .02.2024 in LA.No.230 of 2023 i n O.S-No.4 1 6 9 of 2022 passed by the X Junior Civii Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the apptication flled by respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff under Order XV-A r/u' Section l5l oICPC was allowed'

3. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.2 and 3, respondent No'1 herein is the ptaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is defen,lant No.1 in the suit. For convetrir:nce, l-rereinaf1er, the parlies are refene'l to as they are arrayed in the suil.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the presenl. Civil Revision petition are rhal. plaintiff filed a suit in o.S.No.4l69 of 2022 for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property and alsc' for recovery of arrears ofrents. f'he defendants entered appearance and filed their written starements. Dur.ing the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order X\/- A r'lw Section 1 5 1 CPC v ide 1.A.No.230 of 2023 seeking a direction to the defendants to pay the arrears of rents frc'rn August, 2022 -a" tll 31.03.2023 2 LNA, J CRP.No.l4J2 of 2tD4 \., l \' \ r. @Rs.16,500/- per month i.e., Rs.1,32,000/_ as agreed by the defendants. The defendants filed counter opposing the application. 5 The trial Court vide impugned order d.ated 27.O2.zL24allowed the said application, by obs ervi ng that defendants failed to show that thev were paying rents since August, 2022 i.e., from the date of institution of the suit; that the arears of rents are not seriously disputed by the defendants; and that the jural .erationship of landlord and tenant stands provcd, and accordingly, directed defendant Nos.l to 3 to jointly and severally pay the arrears of rents @ Rs.16,500/_ per month from August, 2022 to i.e.,31.12.2023 within a period of three (3) monrhs from the date of said order' Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision is fited by defendant Nos.2 and 3.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal and contrary to law; that trial Court failed to consider the fact the plaintiff herself denied the jurar relationship of randrord and tenant between her and defendant Nos.2 and 3 and in such circumstances, any order against defendant Nos'2 and 3 under order Xv-A cpc wi, be nonestand bad in law. He further submitted that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have not admitted J I,NA, J CRP.No.l432 of2024 the relationship of landlord and tenant between thr: pLaintiff and thernselves and that, when there is no such jural relationship, payment of arrears of rents by delendant Nos.2 and 3 does not arise and hence, the issue of payment of atrears of rents has to be decided after full-fledged trial, and not, summarily in an application filed under Order XV-A of CPC and finall1', prayed to allow the Revision. 7 . Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintiff submitted that the trial Court, on due consideration of the fact that there exists a jural relationship of landlord and tenants between the plaintiff and det-endant Nos.2 and 3, and also that the defendants did not seriously dispute the adm.itted rents, has rightly allowed the application and petitioners hav e failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the Revision.

8. Perusal o1- the record would disclose that plaintiif filed a suit in O.S.No.4169 of 2022 for eviction of the defendant:i from the suit schedule properly and for recovery ofrents, past and futrtre rents. During the pendency of the suit, as the defendants, who are the tr:nants ofthe suit schedule premises, defaulted in payment of rents, plaintiff filed an application un<ler Order XV-A of CPC seeking a direction to defendants to pay the arreirrs ofrentt. -r, 4 1i, ali,{.)\ CRP.No.la32 oJ202a \\ 9' In the plainr, the praintiff stated that defendant No.r entered into lease deed dated 05.0g.2019 with her in respect of the suir schedule premises, thereby, agreeing ro pay rhe lease rent @ Rs.r5,000A per month; the said lease was for a period of I I months i.e., upto 30.06.2020; that defendant No.l paid Rs.30,000/_ towards deposit amounr; that at the request of defendant No.l, the lease period was extended on monthly basis; that as per the agreement, the rent was enhanced to Rs.16,500/- and the enhanced rent was paid till JuIy,2022by the defbndants. 10' It is the case or the defendants that praintiff has entered into lease deed only with defendant No.l and that, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not parties to the said rease deed and the plaintiff did not enter into lease deed with the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the suit schedule premises, however, the defendants admitted that the rent of the suit schedule propefty as on date of filing of the counter was Rs.16,500/_ per month; that in the plaint, praintiff herself denied the jural relationship of landlady and tenants between herself and defendant Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, the application filed under Order XV_A of CpC ought to have been dismissed in limine by the trial Court and thus, the impugned order fastening the liability on defendant Nos.2 and 3 to pay the arrears ofrents alonq with defendant No. 1 is liable to be set aside. 1 l I .;:-;.!P-,F!}F}'l'-lll 5 LNA, J CRP.No,l432 oI2024

11. It is interresting to note that defendant No.3 fited a suit vide O.S.No.1713 ol 2022 on the file of X Junior Civil Jr",dge, City Civil Court, Hyderabacl, against plaintiff for pcrpetual injunction in respect of the same properl)'u,hich is subject matter of OS.No,416!t of 2022. ln the ptaint in OS.No. I 7 13 of 2022, defendant No.3 has categorically pleaded that originally, her father i.e., defendant No.l was tetrant of the suit schedule premises till January, 2022 and thereafter, with the consent of plaintiff, the tenancy was orally transferred to hel and rent was Rs.16,5001 per nronth. She furlher averred that the rents were being paid regularly by her, however, the plaintiff tried to lbrcibly evict her from the schedule premises, therefore, she was constrained to hle the suit for perpetual injunction.

12. The ptaint.iff filed counter-affidavit in this Re'iision enclosing cerlain material papers, which includes her bank statement for the period from 01.04.20211 to 18.03.2023. From the said bank Statement of Account, it is evident that every rnonth, defendant No.3 had been transferring rent @ Rs.16,500/- to the joint account of plaintiff till August, 2022.

13. The record, particularly, the cause title of the parties before the trial Oo{,t us well as this Court, goes to show that defendant lllos.3 and 2, who : l I I l: I I i t i 6 CRP.N,.llt2 of2024 \.\. .:,:.', LNA, J\. are daughter and son_in_law of defendant No. l, respectively, were residing in the suit schedule propefty along defendant No.l. 14. Fufiher, it is worth_mentioning to note that on 27.04.2022, defendant No.3 filed a suit vide O.S.No.17l3 of 2022, wherein it is categoricalry stated that her father i.e., defendant No. 1 was the originar tenant and subsequently, the tenancy was transferred to her orary and that she was paying rents regularly. i5. However, in the counter filed by defendant No.3 in IA.No.230 of 2023, on 07.06.2023, she has tried to put forth a new case that the lease deed was between her father and praintiff, and that herserf and defendant No.2-her husband were not parties to the lease deed, therefore, the application filed by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent is bad in law.

16. Thus, when defendant No.3 asserted that she is tenant of plaintiff in OS.No.1713 of 2022 filed by her, she cannot take a .U, tum and take shelter of the statement of plaintiff in os.No.416 9 of 2022 denying her tenancv

17. That apart, though, plaintiff denied the tenancy of defendant No'3' she has not stated as to in what capacity she has received the rent "/ 7 LNA, J CRP.No.1432 of 2024 @ Rs. 16,500/- per month from defendant No.3, which is t:vident from her bank Statement ol-Account. I 8. The afcrresaiC aspects coupled with the categori'ral statement of defendant No.3 in O.S.No. 1713 of 2022 that the tenancy was transferred to her orally in February, 2022, and also in the light of the Statement of Account of plaintiff, it is clear that the plaintiff had rect:ived rents from det-endant No.3 from April,2022 to August, 2022.

19. In the ight ol the above, defendant No.3 along r'vith defendant No. t. who is her t'ather, are liable to pay the arears of t'ents to the plaintifl.

20. lnsofar as defendant No.2 (son-in-law of defendant No.l) is conccmed, sinc e there is no admission of jural relationship of land lord and tenant, eithel by the plaintiff or defendant No.2, thi;; Court is of the opinion that liabilitS,to pay affears of rents cannot be fastcned on him and the trial Couft e:rred in fastening the liability on defendan: No.2 to pay the arrear-s of rents along with defendant No.l and 3 attd as such, the impugned order needs to be modified to that effect.

21. For the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision f'etition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 in I.A.No.230 of 2023 in O.S.No.4169 ,tf 2022 passed by the X Junior Civil (lourt, City Civil ,a/ 8 LNA, CRP.No.I432 of 2021 I court, Hyderabad, is modified to the extent that only defendant Nos.l and 3 are directed to pay the arrears of rents @ Rs.16,500/_ per month from August, 2022 ttr the date of eviction i.e., 3r.12.2023, to the plaintiff within three (3) months from date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY S ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRI AADESH VARMA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI K BALAKRISHNA Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies GR/GR \r- 1 i I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 ORDER CRP.No.1432 ot 2024 tl + ii"i 2625 .. rl,: \- .-, , , .,. 1r,l-C -t' ..;' PARTLY ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION c "'dd k^w

Petition under section 151 of cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pteased to suspend the operation of orders passed in l. A. No. 230 of 2023 in O S. No. 4169 of 2022 dated 27-02-2024 passed by the learned X Junior civil Judge, city civit Courts, at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. AADESH VARMA Counsel forthe Respondents: K BALAKRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I : , I i I -*'="-7 IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA AT,ISHETTY CI!'II- REVISION PETITON No.1432 OF 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, Iearned counsel for the petitioners and Sli K.Balakrishna. iearned counsel lor respondent No l' Perused the entire material available on record.

2. This CiviL I{evision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 27 .02.2024 in LA.No.230 of 2023 i n O.S-No.4 1 6 9 of 2022 passed by the X Junior Civii Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the apptication flled by respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff under Order XV-A r/u' Section l5l oICPC was allowed'

3. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.2 and 3, respondent No'1 herein is the ptaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is defen,lant No.1 in the suit. For convetrir:nce, l-rereinaf1er, the parlies are refene'l to as they are arrayed in the suil.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the presenl. Civil Revision petition are rhal. plaintiff filed a suit in o.S.No.4l69 of 2022 for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property and alsc' for recovery of arrears ofrents. f'he defendants entered appearance and filed their written starements. Dur.ing the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order X\/- A r'lw Section 1 5 1 CPC v ide 1.A.No.230 of 2023 seeking a direction to the defendants to pay the arrears of rents frc'rn August, 2022 -a" tll 31.03.2023 2 LNA, J CRP.No.l4J2 of 2tD4 \., l \' \ r. @Rs.16,500/- per month i.e., Rs.1,32,000/_ as agreed by the defendants. The defendants filed counter opposing the application. 5 The trial Court vide impugned order d.ated 27.O2.zL24allowed the said application, by obs ervi ng that defendants failed to show that thev were paying rents since August, 2022 i.e., from the date of institution of the suit; that the arears of rents are not seriously disputed by the defendants; and that the jural .erationship of landlord and tenant stands provcd, and accordingly, directed defendant Nos.l to 3 to jointly and severally pay the arrears of rents @ Rs.16,500/_ per month from August, 2022 to i.e.,31.12.2023 within a period of three (3) monrhs from the date of said order' Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision is fited by defendant Nos.2 and 3.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal and contrary to law; that trial Court failed to consider the fact the plaintiff herself denied the jurar relationship of randrord and tenant between her and defendant Nos.2 and 3 and in such circumstances, any order against defendant Nos'2 and 3 under order Xv-A cpc wi, be nonestand bad in law. He further submitted that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have not admitted J I,NA, J CRP.No.l432 of2024 the relationship of landlord and tenant between thr: pLaintiff and thernselves and that, when there is no such jural relationship, payment of arrears of rents by delendant Nos.2 and 3 does not arise and hence, the issue of payment of atrears of rents has to be decided after full-fledged trial, and not, summarily in an application filed under Order XV-A of CPC and finall1', prayed to allow the Revision. 7 . Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintiff submitted that the trial Court, on due consideration of the fact that there exists a jural relationship of landlord and tenants between the plaintiff and det-endant Nos.2 and 3, and also that the defendants did not seriously dispute the adm.itted rents, has rightly allowed the application and petitioners hav e failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the Revision.

8. Perusal o1- the record would disclose that plaintiif filed a suit in O.S.No.4169 of 2022 for eviction of the defendant:i from the suit schedule properly and for recovery ofrents, past and futrtre rents. During the pendency of the suit, as the defendants, who are the tr:nants ofthe suit schedule premises, defaulted in payment of rents, plaintiff filed an application un<ler Order XV-A of CPC seeking a direction to defendants to pay the arreirrs ofrentt. -r, 4 1i, ali,{.)\ CRP.No.la32 oJ202a \\ 9' In the plainr, the praintiff stated that defendant No.r entered into lease deed dated 05.0g.2019 with her in respect of the suir schedule premises, thereby, agreeing ro pay rhe lease rent @ Rs.r5,000A per month; the said lease was for a period of I I months i.e., upto 30.06.2020; that defendant No.l paid Rs.30,000/_ towards deposit amounr; that at the request of defendant No.l, the lease period was extended on monthly basis; that as per the agreement, the rent was enhanced to Rs.16,500/- and the enhanced rent was paid till JuIy,2022by the defbndants. 10' It is the case or the defendants that praintiff has entered into lease deed only with defendant No.l and that, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not parties to the said rease deed and the plaintiff did not enter into lease deed with the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the suit schedule premises, however, the defendants admitted that the rent of the suit schedule propefty as on date of filing of the counter was Rs.16,500/_ per month; that in the plaint, praintiff herself denied the jural relationship of landlady and tenants between herself and defendant Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, the application filed under Order XV_A of CpC ought to have been dismissed in limine by the trial Court and thus, the impugned order fastening the liability on defendant Nos.2 and 3 to pay the arrears ofrents alonq with defendant No. 1 is liable to be set aside. 1 l I .;:-;.!P-,F!}F}'l'-lll 5 LNA, J CRP.No,l432 oI2024

11. It is interresting to note that defendant No.3 fited a suit vide O.S.No.1713 ol 2022 on the file of X Junior Civil Jr",dge, City Civil Court, Hyderabacl, against plaintiff for pcrpetual injunction in respect of the same properl)'u,hich is subject matter of OS.No,416!t of 2022. ln the ptaint in OS.No. I 7 13 of 2022, defendant No.3 has categorically pleaded that originally, her father i.e., defendant No.l was tetrant of the suit schedule premises till January, 2022 and thereafter, with the consent of plaintiff, the tenancy was orally transferred to hel and rent was Rs.16,5001 per nronth. She furlher averred that the rents were being paid regularly by her, however, the plaintiff tried to lbrcibly evict her from the schedule premises, therefore, she was constrained to hle the suit for perpetual injunction.

12. The ptaint.iff filed counter-affidavit in this Re'iision enclosing cerlain material papers, which includes her bank statement for the period from 01.04.20211 to 18.03.2023. From the said bank Statement of Account, it is evident that every rnonth, defendant No.3 had been transferring rent @ Rs.16,500/- to the joint account of plaintiff till August, 2022.

13. The record, particularly, the cause title of the parties before the trial Oo{,t us well as this Court, goes to show that defendant lllos.3 and 2, who : l I I l: I I i t i 6 CRP.N,.llt2 of2024 \.\. .:,:.', LNA, J\. are daughter and son_in_law of defendant No. l, respectively, were residing in the suit schedule propefty along defendant No.l. 14. Fufiher, it is worth_mentioning to note that on 27.04.2022, defendant No.3 filed a suit vide O.S.No.17l3 of 2022, wherein it is categoricalry stated that her father i.e., defendant No. 1 was the originar tenant and subsequently, the tenancy was transferred to her orary and that she was paying rents regularly. i5. However, in the counter filed by defendant No.3 in IA.No.230 of 2023, on 07.06.2023, she has tried to put forth a new case that the lease deed was between her father and praintiff, and that herserf and defendant No.2-her husband were not parties to the lease deed, therefore, the application filed by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent is bad in law.

16. Thus, when defendant No.3 asserted that she is tenant of plaintiff in OS.No.1713 of 2022 filed by her, she cannot take a .U, tum and take shelter of the statement of plaintiff in os.No.416 9 of 2022 denying her tenancv

17. That apart, though, plaintiff denied the tenancy of defendant No'3' she has not stated as to in what capacity she has received the rent "/ 7 LNA, J CRP.No.1432 of 2024 @ Rs. 16,500/- per month from defendant No.3, which is t:vident from her bank Statement ol-Account. I 8. The afcrresaiC aspects coupled with the categori'ral statement of defendant No.3 in O.S.No. 1713 of 2022 that the tenancy was transferred to her orally in February, 2022, and also in the light of the Statement of Account of plaintiff, it is clear that the plaintiff had rect:ived rents from det-endant No.3 from April,2022 to August, 2022.

19. In the ight ol the above, defendant No.3 along r'vith defendant No. t. who is her t'ather, are liable to pay the arears of t'ents to the plaintifl.

20. lnsofar as defendant No.2 (son-in-law of defendant No.l) is conccmed, sinc e there is no admission of jural relationship of land lord and tenant, eithel by the plaintiff or defendant No.2, thi;; Court is of the opinion that liabilitS,to pay affears of rents cannot be fastcned on him and the trial Couft e:rred in fastening the liability on defendan: No.2 to pay the arrear-s of rents along with defendant No.l and 3 attd as such, the impugned order needs to be modified to that effect.

21. For the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision f'etition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 in I.A.No.230 of 2023 in O.S.No.4169 ,tf 2022 passed by the X Junior Civil (lourt, City Civil ,a/ 8 LNA, CRP.No.I432 of 2021 I court, Hyderabad, is modified to the extent that only defendant Nos.l and 3 are directed to pay the arrears of rents @ Rs.16,500/_ per month from August, 2022 ttr the date of eviction i.e., 3r.12.2023, to the plaintiff within three (3) months from date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY S ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRI AADESH VARMA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI K BALAKRISHNA Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies GR/GR \r- 1 i I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 ORDER CRP.No.1432 ot 2024 tl + ii"i 2625 .. rl,: \- .-, , , .,. 1r,l-C -t' ..;' PARTLY ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION c "'dd k^w