The High Court · 2025

..RespondenUDefendant lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated tn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in os No. 4090 of 2021 pending on the file of Vlll Junior civit Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad pending disposal of this Revision. Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. HABEEB ABUBAKAR ALHAMED Counsel for the Respondents: MIRZA SHAH NAWAZ BAIG The Court made the following: ORDER .:rYi:} )/ ._,r'i.a HON'BLE SRIIUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITONNO.l 508 0F 2023 ORDER: I{eard Sri Habeeb Abubaka Ahrnad, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mirza Shah Nawaz Baig,-Iearned counsel for the respondents. perused the materiar avairabre on record.

2. This Civil Revision petition is filed aggrieved by the ordcr, dated 09.03.2023 ir.r I.A.No.6 of Z022in O.S.No.409 O of 2027 passed by the VIII Junior Civil Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, whereby and where under the application filed under Order XV-A of CpC by tl-re petitioner was dismissed.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts rclevant for acljudication of the pr.esent Civil Revision Petiiion are that petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.4090 of 2027 for recovcry of possession, arrears of rent, past and future mesne profits. Respondents entered appearance and filed the written statement. During the pender-rcy of the suii, petitioner filed an application olde I.A.No.6 of 2022 seeking direction to the respondents to payrldeposit accumulated arrears of r:ents for a 2 LNA, J CRP.No.l508 oJ 2023 i: sum of Rs.37,500/- for the months from26'04'2021 to September' 2021 beingdeficit amount @ Rs'7'500/- per month as well as to continue to deposit the agreed monthly amount @ Rs'7'500/- per month as and when it falls due to the credit of the above suit'

5. The trial Coritt aide order dated 09'03'2023 dismissed the I.A.No.6 of 2022with an observation that since there is dispute regarding the iural relationship and quantum of rents among the parties, the same cannot be decided at this stage under this petition and the same can only be decided af ter adducing evidence from both the parties' The trial Court further observed that as per the Order XV-A of CPC' the admitted rents can be deposited by the tenant in the Court' however' the respondents' are clenying the jural relationship between the petitioner and respondcnts, therefore, the trial Court cannot insist the respondents to deposit the rents' Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.03.2023, the present revision is filed'

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after purchase of the suit schedule Property by the petitioner' she issued notice to the resPondents, who are the tenants of the suit 3 LNA, J CRP.No.l 508 of 2023 schedule propcrty, to pay the rents from the date of its purchase, however, the respondents failed to pay the rents; that without considering the said fact, the trial Court erroneousll, dismissed the application; tl-ra t trial Court miserably failed to appreciate that the vendor of the petitioner has also issued letter to respondents informing that l.re sold the suit schedule property to the petitioner and inforrned them to pay tl-re rent @ Rs.7,500/ _ p.m, to the petitioner since the ter-rancy of the respondents has been attorned in favour of the petitioner from the date of its purchase and finaliy, prayed to allow the revision and sct aside the impugned order.

7. ln support of the contention, Iearned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions: i) ii) Asha Rani Gupta v. Sri Vineet Kumarr; and A.P.Leela v. Nakkala Kishore yadav2

8. Per conh.a, learned counsel for respondenLs would subrnit that the trial Court, on due consideration of the fact that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between vendor of the petitior-rer and respondents as well as between the petitioner 1 2022 Livelaw (SC) 607 r 2018 (4) ALD 392 4 LNA, J CRP.No.t50E of 2023 r-) and respondents and therefore' the trial Court has rightly d.ismissed.andthepetitionerfailedtomakeoutanycaseto interfere with the impugned order and finally' prayed to dismiss the revision

9. Perusal of the record would disclose that petitioner filed a suitino.S.No.4090of2o21'forlecoveryofpossession,arearsof rent, Past and future mesne profiLs' Pending adjudication of the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order XV-A of CPC with a dilection to respondents to Pay the arrears of rents alleging default in payment of rents by the respondents'

10. The petitioner is claiming ownership over the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 26 '04'2021 vide document no.1150 of 2021having purchased the same from one Mohd.SarwarKhanandalsoclaimingthatrespondentsarethe tenants of her vendor and she being owner of the suit schedulc property, is entitled to the rents, arrears of rent and mesne profits'

11. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents that Sarwar Khan is the owner of the suit schedule property and they are i2 permissive possession with the permission of Sarwar 1 i I I i I I I I { '1, 5 LNA, J CRP.No.l508 of 2023 Khan and there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the respondents. It is further case of respondents that when Sarwar Khan (vendor of petitioner) interfered with the suit schedule property, they have filcd a suit in o.s.No.2337 of 2027 on the file of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for perpetual injunction and further, in the reply notice dated

24.09.2027 given by the respondents in response to the notice dated 11.09.2021 issued on behalf of the pctitioner, it is clearly mentioned that there is landlord and tenant relationship ancl therefore, application is not maintainable. 1,2 It is relevant to refer to Order XV_A of CpC (amendment), which reads as under "1. In a suit for recovery of possession, on terminalron of lease, or licence, with or without a prayer for recovery of arrears of rent, or licence fee, known r.r,ith whatever descriptio4 the defendant, while filing his written statelnent, shall deposit the amount, ."p."r".rtir,g the unclisputed arrears, calculated up to that date into the Court and shall continue to deposit such amount, r+,hich becornes pavable thereafter within one week from the date on which it becomes due, till the judgment is rendered in the suit.

2. Whether the defendant plearls in the written statement that no arrears of rent or licence fee exists, it shall be comp_etent for the Court to pass an order in this regard, alter affording opportunity to both the parties, and ir".rr,, arly amount is found due, the defendant shall be uncler obligation to deposit the same, within the time stipulatr:d by the Court and cor-rtinue to dcposit the amount which becomes payable thereafter, as provided under Rule l: 6 LNA' J CRP,No.1508 of 2023 a Provided that the time stipulated for payment of amourlt, as aforesaid, may be extended by-. the- Court for reasons to be recorded for a period not exceeding 15 days "

13. Perusal of Order XV-A of CPC indicates that Court can pass an order for Payment of rents if it is found due by the tenant to the landlord on an aPPlication filed by the landlord' However' in the present case, there is serious dispute with regard to jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents and the petitioner has not placed any material to substantiate her claim that respondents are the tenants of her vendor and that they were paying rents to her vendor' L4. In view of serious dispute with regard to landlord and tenant relationship, at this point of time' this Court cannot direct the respondents to pay the arrears of rents and future mesne profits to the petitioner since the respondenls claiming thal' lhere is no jural relationship betlveen the petitioner and the respondents, however, they are claiming permissive possession of the suit schedule ProPerty' The issue whether there is landlord - tenant relationship between petitioner and the respondents has to be decided only after full-fledged trial ln considered opinion of this Court, Order XV-A of CPC applies only where there is /\ i i I { ! * i t I I I i ! l t I I 7 LNA, J CRP.No.I508 of 2023 Iandlord-tenant relationship bctween the landlord and tenant. In the present case, thc respondents denying rhe jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondents

15. In Asha Rani Gupta (supra), rclied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner, there is no clispute with regard to landlord and tenant rclationship between the vendor of the plaintiff and the defendant and after purchase, the defendant became the tenant of the plaintiff and thus, a suit was filed. In the said case, tcnant admittcd that he was the tenant of thc vendor of the plaintiff, but contended that sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was void. In the present case, the respondents are denying the relationship of landlord and tenant, even between vendor of plaintiff and the respondents. Thercfore, the above case I-ras no application to the present case. 1,6. Similarly, the facts and circumstances of the case in A'P.Leela's (supra) and the present case are differer.rt ancl therefore, the same has no application to the present case. 17. In the light of above discussion and in the absence of any material evidencing relationship of landlord and tenant between t t 8 LNA, ] CRP.N?.l508 of 2023 the petitioner and the respondents, application filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondents to Pav the arrears of rents cannot be entertained. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and thus, this Court does not find any reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order' Thus' the Revision

18. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed' However' considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2027' the trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs' Pending miscellaneous applications, if any' shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. VIJAY KUMAR UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Vlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to SRl. HABEEB ABUBAKAR ALHAMED, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. hIIRZA SHAH NAWAZ BAIG, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GK/gh ! I l r I I HIGH COURT DATED:1110612025 t I I .,. 1(- ld s r4 re ,/ \\ 10 siP 26 iil t ,,/ '/ 4Tat It ,-. t ./ ORDER CRP.No.1508 of 2023 4 DISMISSING OF THE CRP WITHOU COSTS //z /3,.,/8/?5- I I I I i { I i , i I ; t I , i I I I I t ! , t ! ; I I t T