Thc High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA DATE: 17.L2.2O25 CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2147 OF 20I9 Between: Mr. P. Kishan Racr . Petitioner And Mrs.P.Vimaler and olhers ... Respondents ORDER 'lhis Civil Rer ision Petition, under Articl e 227 of t]ne Constitution of inclia, is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff aggrieved b-v the or.der, dated 05.07.2019, in I.A.No.330 of 20lB in O.S.No.554 ol 2018 passed by the learned V Senior Civit Judge, Cit1. Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order XV-A read u,ith 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct the respondents-defendants to deposit the arrears of rent @ Rs.25,OO0/ per rnor-rth for the period from October, 2012 to June, 2O1B i.e., for a period of nine months, amounting to 7 NNR,J crp_2747 _2079 Rs.2,25,OOO/- and continue to deposit the future rents at the same rate till disposal of the suit, was dismissed

2. Heard Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkatesh Deshpande, Iearned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner- piarntiff hled the aforesard suit for eviction of the respondents-defendants from the suit schedule property i.e., H.No.1 1-261115/G and 1-1-26I/15/G1 consisting of ground plus pent house situated at Road No. 1, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, ald for arrears of rent and mesne profits. The petitioner is the absolute owner ald landlord of aforesaid suit schedule property and the same was let-out to the respondcnts in the year I9B7 on a monthly rent of R.s.25,000/-. It is stated that till September 2017, the respondents paid rent and from October, 2Ol7 they }rave commi[ted default in payment of rent. Therefore, the petitioner issued notice, dated 16.04.20 1B under Section 106 of the Act, 1882 (for short, the Act, 1882') calling upon the respondents to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the suit 3 NNR,J ctp 2147 _2019 schedule property r,,,ithin 30 days lrom the date of receipt of said rrotice. But. no reph, was given to the said notice Per-rciing suit, the petitioncr filed the aforesaid application seel<irrs to pa_r' tl-re arrcilrs of rent (a' Rs.25,000/- per month

1. The respondents defendants filed counter aflidavit denf ing the avernrents made in the application stating that on 1-1.08. 1987, the petitioncr has agreed to sell the front portion of thc suir schedulc property to an extent of 180 square 1,ards for a con sicl era t iot'r of Rs.3,25,000/- and on the same da]. his ferther P.Rajarnouli paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as advancc to the petitioner and as a consequence on 17.08.1987, arr Agreement of Sale u,as entered br. ancl betwcen his father and the petitioner in respect of thr-' sard 1and. Ir is stated that as per the said Agrt:ement his fathcr has to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,OO0/ to the petitioner on or before 30.09.1987 and on receipt of the said amount, the petitioncr has to handover the vacant possession to the father of the respondents. The petitioner also sold rear side portion of 210 square yards to father of the respondents for a consideration of Rs.4,0O,O0O/-. After purchase of the same, the said P. Ra.lamouli became owner of 4 NNR,J crp-2747 _2019 - entire suit scheduie property. After death of Rajamouli on

25.O3.2OI8, the respondents are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. The contentior-r of the petitioner is tl-rat the respondents are tenants of the suit schedule property and hence, they are liable to pay rent, arrears of rent atld future rents

5. Considering the contentions ald rival contentions of both parties and also the documents Exs.P. I to P.5 and Exs.R.1 to R.16, the learned trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, tl.re present Civil Revision Petition is filed contending that the learned trial Court lailed to appreciate that though the petitioner got issued notice to the respondents under Section 106 of the Act, 1882 demanding them to vacate the premises and to pay the monthly rent (r) Rs.25,000/- with arrears of rent, there was no response to the said notice;the learned trial Court did not consider that there u,as a false plea set up by the respondents claiming that they a,re enjoying the property through Agreement of SaIe executed by the petitioner; that even in case of Agreement of Sale taken to be genuine, the respondents would wait without taking ary steps for --- 5 NNR,,] crp_2747 _2079 registration of Salc Deed from 1987 onwards; that the learned trial Court diC not corrsider that the l)etitioner being ou,ner of the propen-t; rl-ra1 thc lcnrncd trial Court lailed to appreciate that the Agreement ol Sale. ri'hich is rclied bv the respondents is a fabricatecl do<:ument and the contents discloses that the father of the respon<l ents a il cged h cntered into Agreement with the petitione r

6. Admittcdh,. the application is liled under Order XV -A read u,ith I5I ol C.P.C. u'hich is incorporated in the impugned ordcr passed br, the lcarned trial Court. For convenience, the samc is re ltroduced irs under: '(1I Irr :: suil fol rccovcn- oI posscssion, on termination o[ Ieirsc, or liccnce, \r'ith or uithout a prayer for rccovr:ry' ol arrcars ol tcnt, or Iicerrce fee, known with rvhatever d('scrrl)tion, tlre rlcfcndanr, ,,vhile filing his \\,ritten statarnerrl, stlall dcposit the iultount, representing tlle LlndiSpllteC rrrrc;rrs. r'alt'ulalcd Ltpto that date rntO the Cour-t irnd shall conrrnLre to del)osit such amount, rvhich Lreco:r:cs pavat;le rhercaftcr $rthin one rveek from the datc or.. rvhrch it bccomes due, till the judgment is rendered in the srrit. (2) Where tlrc d.lcndant pleacls in thc written statement that rro arrcars o[ r(]nt or licence fec exists, it shall be compctent Jbr thc Cout t to pass an or.der in this regard, after affording ol)po.tunrt\ to both the parties, and ir.r case an], amou.nt is found due. the defendant shall be under obligatron to deposit the sanre, within the time stipulated by the Court and continue to deposit the amount which bccomes payable thcreafter, as provided under Rulc 1. Provided that the time stipulatcd for payment of arnount, as aforesaid, mav bc extcndcd by the Court for 6 NNR,J cQ_2747 _2019 reasons to be recorded for a period not exceeding 15 days. If the defendanl commits default in making the deposits, as aforesaid, the Court shall strike off the defe nce. On such deposit it shall be competent for the plaintiff to withdralv thc samc. Explanation: TtI: expression "the amount representing the undisputed arrears" shall the sum of rent, or licence fee, calculated for tho pcriod, for rvhich it remained unpaid, after deducting l}om it, any amount. (a) Paid as tax, to a local aulhority, rn respect of the propert-\. (b) Paid to the plaintrff rrncler u,ritten acknowledgment; and (c) Depositcd into the (lourt, in an1' proccedings, in relation to thc said propcrtr. "

7. Learned colrnsel appearing lor the revlslon petitioner vehementl], a-rgued arrd contended that the respondents-defendants are only tenants of the suit schedule properB' and that Rajamouli, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 to 4, obtained said property on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- arrd accordingly, he paid an arnount ol Rs.7,50,O00/- to the petitioner on various dates with arr understanding that the said arnount shall be adjusted against the rent from September, 1989 to September, 20 17 and on demald, the original sale deed, dated 21.11.i983 was halded over to Rajamouli. He further submits that, after September, 2Ol7 the petitioner -- 7 NNR,J ctp_21.47 _2019 approached the responclents and requested them to pay rent @ Rs.25,000 I per month and return the original sale deed, for u.hich thcy did not rctllrn sale rleed and did not pay arreai-s of rcnt ancl ther-ebr., they committ ed dcfault in payment of rents. Hc furthcr submits that the petitioner issued notice undr:r Scclior-t 106 of tl-re Act, 1882 on

16.04.2018 calling upon thc rcspondents to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate tl-re subjcct premises. [n support of his contentions. he also rclicd upon judgment of the Hontle Supreme Court in Asha Rani Gupta v.Vineet Kumar I Civil Appeal No.4682 of 2022) u,hercin it ri as held thus "ln tl-re corrtexl o[ the proposition of deniaI of title of the plaintilf ,,u.rr I dcnial ol relationship of larldlord and tenant betwccn thc plaintill and defcndant, wt' may also observe that sLrch a denial simplicitcr does not and cannot absoll,c thc lesscc/tenant to deposit ttre due amount of rent,/damage for use and occupation, unless he could shou, har-ing madc such payment rn a lau.ful and bonafidc manner. Of course, the queslion of bonafide is a question of [act, to bc determined in every case nith rcference to its facts btrt, it cannot bc laid tlorwr as a general proposition that by merely denying the title of plaintift or relationship of landlord-tenant/lessor-[essee, a defendant or the suit of the present nature could enjo_v the property during the pendency of the suit without depositrng the .unount of rent/damages." 8 NNR,J crp _2747 _2019 - 8. He further contended that merely on the ground that the petitioner-plaintiff entered into an Agreement of Sale with the respondents defendants, the respondents cannot squat on the propertv without making any rent. He a-lso further argued that mere denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondents, such denial simpliciter does not ald cannot absolve the lessee/tenant to deposit the due amount of rent/damage for use and occupation. He further submits that the proposition Iaid dorvn in the said judgment applies to the present facts of the case. 9 - On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner agreed to sell the schedule property to the respondents ald accordingly, the petitioner executed an Agreement of Sale in favour of the respondents and delivered possession of the same in favour of Rajamouli. He further submits that in terms of Agreement of Sa1e, dated 17 .08.1987 the respondents are residing in the said property as its owners. He further submits that after death of Rajamouli, the respondents are in continuous possession ald enjoyment of the entire suit schedule property --- 9 NNR,J crp_2147 _2019 as 1ts o\ rners. The lean-red trial Court afte r considering the orai zLnd documentar-v evidcncc on record, right-r' dismissecl thc application and tltere arc no grounds to interference u,itl-r thc same. 1O. ndmittedly, therc is a denial of ttre relationship of lat-rdlord and lenant betrieen tl-re pelitioner and the respondents. Orcler XV-A ol the Code of Civil procedure (as appiicable to suits arising under the Transfer of proper$u Act, 1882) comes into operation on11. rvhen thc relationship of lan-rcllord and tenant is aclrnitted and there is also an admission rvith regard to the payment of rent. Where the respondents admit the tenanc\. and the quantum of rent, ar-rd thereafter fail to pay the arrears of such admitted rent, the petitioner may institute a suit for eviction. In such circumstances, the Court is bound to direct the respondents to deposit the arrears of admitted rent pending the suit and to continue to pay future rent at the admitted rate until disposal of the suit. i 1. In the present case, though the respondents have admitted the petitioner's ou,nership of the subject property, 10 NNR,J ctp_2747 _2079 - they have categorically denied the existence of a landlord- tenant relationship. They have also denied both the quantum of rent and thc payment thereof. Irr the absence of any admission regarding the quantlrm of rent, and u,ithout first ascertaining such quantum, directing the respondents to deposit any amourlt undcr Ordcr XV-A of tire Code of Civil Procedure is unsustainable. Even if the respondents are in possession whether lawful or othenvise r'r,ithout any evidence of admitted rent placecl before the Court, thc petitioner cannot invoke the proi,isions of Ordt:r XV A irr .l case u'here there is no admission of rcnt. The provision contemplates that the rent or damage s for use eurd occttp:rtion must first be ascertained, and or-rly thereaflei cari a C.ircction be issued to deposit the adnritted rent or dclermit-reC amount. ln the absence of sr,tch ascertarnmcnt, this Court linds no error in the order passed bv the leeirncd .iudge dismissing the application. Consequeni-l',', tire Civil Rc;vision Petition is liable to be dismisscd.

12. Accordingly, the Civil Rcvision Petition is clismissed. Since ',he suit is of the year 2018, the learned trial Court is dii-ectcd tr-r dispose of the sarne as cxpeditiously, as --, 71 NNR,J cQ_2747 _2019 possible, without granting any Llnnecessary adjournments, There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, rf anv, pending shall stand closed SD/- V,HARI PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR /,/'l RUI, ( ()l'Y// sl ('t IC)N ()l I,t('L.ti Io, I l lre'( oirr.t ol tlrr'\r Scnior ('ivil Jut{s1e, Citr'( rvil CLrLu t ,tt I Ir t1t'r-alracl 2 ()nc ( C to Srj NL,\.K.N,lLrkheerl, r\rlvocate [()PLrC] 3 C)ne ( C to Sri \/t'nkatr:sh I )t'shparrcle, .Aclvoc,r tt' [Ol'L;( i -1. l n,o ('l) ( oPres IC K/ PSI , Lw, I IIC]II('OUIi I I).\III) 177 ll,2025 ( )lt I )t. li ( 'Rl'.\o.11 l7 ol l0 I9 I)isnrissin5i the (,.R.['. u rthout costs J ".', ;1.- " r

5. ;o iJ k * --fr. ..i l,ttE dll 2 3 ltAR 202t * r-)lTC