Parushram and Others Vs. Dhiraj Rawal and Othe .r vs Rao Charitable Trust, Hyderabads, (ix) Bharath Bh r-

Order

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Art < lr:- 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed ir l.A.No.102 of 2O23 in O.S.No.10O2 of 2022, b1, the II Addition r Senior Civil Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Ma le.giri, dated

18.08.2023.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent is tl-: rlefendant in the suit. Pctitioner has filed I.A.No. lO2 ot 2023 in r) t;.No.1002 of 2022 under Order XV(A) of the Code of Civil Proce 1 rre, 1908, to direct the respondent - defendant to pay arrear i of rent of Rs.55,30,000/- from 01.04.2016 to 30.11.2022 r 1 the ratc of Rs.7O,OO0/ - per month and future rents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner subn,j si that the respondent has requested the petitioner that he int3 tCed to start business in the name and style of M/s. Green Mi r India Agree Tech Private Limiced and requested to let out tht: rtrit schedule property viz., all that plot bearing No.66, 67, 68 anr. 59 in Survey NO.229 to 246, admeasuring l2O0 sq.yard, consist r s of Godown and shed etc situated at B.N.Reddy Nagar, rlharlapally, R.R.District., bounded by : North : Neighbours Plot; S cuth : Rozrd; G BRMR, J CRP.No.3037 ot 2023 East : Road; and West : Neighbours Plot. Accordingly, the suit schedule property is let out to the respondent on O1.06.2013 on monthly rent of Rs.70,0O0/ per month. Later on 17.08.2013, the revision petilioner has executcd lease deed on the request of the respondent, which shows that the respondent is the proprietor of M/s. Artpak Solutions and there is no document to show that respondent is . running business in the name and style of M/ s. Green Mint India Agree Tech Private Limited. The Court below failed to see that Ex.P6 is the lease deed dated 17.O8.2013, which is submitled by the respondent before the Southern Power Distribution Company of T.S. Limited, to obtain electricity connection to the suit schedule property. As per the lease deed dated 17.08.2013, the monthly rent is Rs.40,00O/- and the Court below ought to have ordered to pay Rs.40,00O/- at least in

I.A.No.102 of 2023. The Trial Court failed to see that the respondent did not Iile any document to show that he is running M/ s. Green Mint india Agree Tech Private Limited in the suit schedule property and wrongly came to a conclusion that the petitioner failed to impiead the said company as defendant in the suit and the petitioner is not enlitled for any rents at any stage.

4. Respondent is harping on Exs.R2 and R4 and the schedule property is let out in the year 2017 to the respondent, which ought to have been accepted. The Trial Court ought to have passed prder ,/ e.--:' 3l1s BRMR, J llP No.3037 oI2023 basing on Ex.P6 - lease deed dated 17.Og.2013. Th,: r:spondent is enjoying the premises without paying any rent. Everr 11 Ex.Rl, ir is menlioned that the scl-redule property is 1et out on k z se in the year 201 7 ancl that the petitioner has esr:rblished by fili: g1 documents that the respondent is a tenant, in support of his ct rtentions has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Ashok Trr r s port Agency Vs. Awadhesh Kumar and anotherr, (ii) Dogiparthi .z nkata Satish and Another Vs, Pilla Durga prasad and Others2 (iii) Shankar Finance and Investments Vs. State of Andhra prades - and Others3, (iv) Shiv Narain Chaudhary Vs. M/s_ Naug and Cornl,r rLya, (v) Rohit Parushram and Others Vs. Dhiraj Rawal and Othe .r Lakshminarayanan Vs. Fine Tubes6, (vii) Sawan.r ", (r,i) Raghu j Yadav vs. R.Gajanand YadavT, (viii) M.B.Chander and others V ; f alakrishna Rao Charitable Trust, Hyderabads, (ix) Bharath Bh r- shan Sanghi Vs. Manoj Kumar Sonie, (x) Rajendra Singh Vs. Srr I anotherro, ("r) Bable alias Gurdeep Singh \ r Chhattisgarht t, (xii) Gorika Sahdev Vs.Honey \ : of U.P and . State of atLar2, (xiii) ' 1tssa1 s scc soz 'z 2025 scc Online SC 1825 ' (zoos) s scc s:o tgaz allahab"d ++ ' vnt u/eploeso/zoos ' {zooz) s scc tog 'zoza 101 aro rss 1rs1 t zotz 1:1 lLo os 'zozr 1s1 aLo rs:1rs1 'o (zooz) z scc:zg * *'' " 12otz111scc 18t t'2023 acJ 1430 4115 BRMR, J CRP.No.3037 ot 2023 I Rangineni Surya Prakash and another Vs. Dr.Susham Bela13, (xiv) Asha Rani Gupta Vs. Vineet Kumarra and (xv) Firm Vijay Nipani Tobacco House Vs. Saru.an Kumar and otherLr, prayed to set aside the impugned order.

5. Learncd senior counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. Respondent ts not a tenant of the petitioner but it is the company. The Trial Court has rightly hcld that the company is not impleaded as a party in the suil, there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also came to a conclusion that maintainabilitv of the suit can be dealt after framing of the issues. The order passed by the Trial Court is in proper prospective, does not require interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the CRP.

6. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material. 7 Now [hc point for consideration is whether the order passed the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal - Ulita.lgi.i District ar Malkagiri, in I.A.No. 102 ot 2023 in O.S.No.1002 of 2022, dated 18.08.2023 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of thig.Court? " zozq (z) nLo zoz (rs) 'o 1zozz1 lo scc ltl " ata t974 PATNA t17 / -- s/ 15 BR}IR, J - ll'.No.3037 of 2023

8. Power of tl-re High Court under Article 227 is srr ,t:rvisory and is exercised to cnsure courts and tribunals under iL supervision act s,ithin thc limits of their juriscliction conferrec rr, [ar.r,. ]']'ris pouer is to bc sparingly exerciscd in cases wht r crrors are apparent on the face of record, occ:rsioning grave ir l t;ric:c by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it d r : ; not have, lailing to exercise jurisdiction rvhich it does have, c,r ;r:rcising its jurisdiction in a pen'erse manner (See: K.Valarmat r and Others Vs. Kumaresan - 2025 SCC Online SC 985).

9. Petitioncr lrzrs stated in tl-re piaint in paragrapl lr.2 tl'rat lhc respondent - dcfendant, who is his brother-in-1a', is running business in thc name and style of M / s. Green M rr India Agree Tech Private Limited, situated at Habsiguda, Hyderzr r cl zrnd he let out . the said suit schedule property to the defr:r r irnt for the purpose of godou,n on a monthly rent of Rs ' (),OOO/ - on

01.06.2013 and the tenancy is oral. Further, th, respondent- defendant has paid [he rents for a period of six mc r lrs, later he stopped paying the same. In lhe month of March 2[ 7 petitioner- plaintiff approached the respondent-defendant a I > r11 r.l,ith his brother by name M.srinivasa Rao, requested him to 1ay the rents and that on 17.03.2017 the respondent-defendanl gtve a false complaint against the petitioner and his brother. 1I : petitioner- plaintiff on i 1.O 1.2019 frnally got issued notice unct r ilection 106- .G 6/ Ls BRMR, J CRP.No.3037 ot 2023 of Transfer of Property Act, calling the respondent-defendant to vacate and hand over the suit premises by end of February 2019, failing which he is entitled to claim damages at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/ pcr monlh. [t is also stated in paragrapl.r No.6A of the plaint that respondent-defendant completely stopped the payment of rent since O1.O4.2016 and that the defendant is liable to pay arrears of rent from 01.04.2016 till 31.03.2019 [36 months at the rate ot Rs.7O,O00/-1, u,hich comes to Rs.25,2O,OO0/-.

10. Respondcnt-defendanl has filed his ri.ritten statement denying the jural relationship o[ the landlord and tenant. 1 1. Petitioner has stated in the affidavit in I.A.No. lO2 of 2019 the same facts which are stated in the plaint, but ciaimed arrears of rent of Rs.55,30,000/- i.e ., from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2O19 for 36 months at the rate of Rs.70,00O/- per month, which comes lo Rs.25,2O,OO0/- and from Ol.O4.2Ol9 to 30.11.2022, for 43 months at the rate of Rs.70,000/-, which comes to Rs.30,1O,O00/-, totaling to Rs.55,30,000/-.

12. Respondent-defendant has filed counter in I.A.No.102 of 2023 and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and further contended that suit is bad for non-joinder of neglssary party. ^/ ----7 , Tlts BRMR, J llU' No.3037 ,)f 2023

13. The learned Trial Court after going through l rr documents marked by thr: parties observed that the petitioner s not entitled for an order to d jrect the respondent to deposit arr( : r j of monthlv rents of Rs..55,30,000/- and the future rents i i rltc rate of Rs.7O,OOO/ - pcr rnonrh in the Court till disposal of I c s,it, as the petitioner failcrl to prove the existence of less r and lessee relationship and also failed to prove the undisputed rL r:ars ofrent

74. Petitioncr has got marked Exs.p1 to p6 and 1r , respon(lent has got markcd trxs.R 1 to R6 before the Trial Court.

15.1 Ex.Pl is the letter dated 03.07.2017 got i; ,rrecl bv the petitioner to thc respondent stating that he has lc c ur the suit schedule propert)/ to the respondent in the month r ,ru.e 2013, wherein he was running a business in the name anc ;tvle of M1s. Greenmint India Agritech (p) Limited and agreed t r pay rent of Rs.70,OO0/- per month and the same is paid for a ,t:riod of six months, thereafter defaulted in paying the rents and - rruested rhc responden t lo vilca lc t he premises.

15.2 Ex.P2 is another letter dated l2.l2.2ol} fur I shing bank particuiars of the petitioner to deposit entire rents rl r: zrs well as future rents at the rate of Rs.70,O0O/_ per month.

15.3 Ex.P3 is the notice under Section 1O6 of Trans& r of propertv Act, dated 11.01.2019 got issued by the petitioner,s ,: r Lnscl to the 'G BRMR, J CRP.No.3037 of 2023 respondent, narrating the same facts as stated in Ex.P1 and called him to vacate the property within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice or by the end of February 2Ol9 and pay entire due rents with intcrest at the rate ol 12,k per annum, further claiming damages or mesne profit at Rs. 1,50,000/ per month for illegal occupation. 15-4 Ex. P6 is the information secured by the petitioner under the RTI Act from Southern Power Distribution Company of T.S. Limited dated 26.O8.2027, Lo u,hich a lease deed dated 17.08.2013 is enclosed. On perusal of the lease deed, u,hich shows that the lessor is the petitioner and [he [essee is M/ s. Artpak Solutions, represented by its proprietor, Sri Murali Dora Bhuthanadhu and the rent is Rs.40,000/- per month and the property is plot Nos. 66 to'69 in block No.4, B.N.Reddy Nagar, Cherlapally, Hyderabad, the lease period is for a period of nine years cornmencing from the date of execution i.e., 17.08.2O 13.

16. It is the specific case of the petitioner-plaintiff that he let out the suit schedule premises to the respondent-defendant for running business in the name and style of M/s Green Mint India Agree Tech Private Limited, it was an oral tenancy on 01.06.2013 and the monthly rent was Rs.70,0OO/- per month, which is stated to be paid for a period of six months. Petitioner's counse/ during 4L.7 ,/ 9l ls BiTMR, J ll:P No.3037 of 2023 the course of arguments contended that the resp I rrlent malr at least be directed to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/ - ::r month as per the lease deed dated 17.08.2013.

17. It is no[ the case of the petitioner_plaintiff trr, he entered into lease agreement nith M/s. Artpak Solutions repr r;ented b,y its proprietor, that is respondent herein.

18. i trx.Rl is the complaint lodged by the petition ; before SHO, Chikadpallr-' Police Station, Hyderabad on 22.:

7.2O21. The complaint goes to show that respondent is his brot:r he rcquested him to give plot admeasuring 1200, shed at B. N- Reddy Nagar at Charlapally, Medche I District for esrablishing their business Agribio 1r accordingly, he leased out the premises in the .., monthly rental basis. 't -in law and sq.yds u'ith .Malka.jgiri sticides and tr 2Ol7 on

18.2 Ex.R2 is rhe FrR.No.2 BS /2021, dated 27..,7.2021, the complainant therein is the petitioner, accused Nr . L is B.Naga Seshu, accused No.2 is B.Murali Dora [respondent lr rein], whrch is filed for the offences under Sections S04 and 506 o F,C.

18.3 trx.R3 is the 161 statement of the petitiol r( r in Crime No.285/2O21, in which he stated that he let out th: premises to Agribiotech Pesticides for conducting business by tL e respondent and his brother by name Naga Seshu. r r0/15 BRMR, J CRP No 3037 of 2023

18.4 Ex.R4 is the certihed copy of charge sheet in FIR.No.285/ 202 1 .

18.5 Ex.RS is the certihed copy of judgment in CC.No.622 of 20 17 , daLed I I .l L2O22 , on rhe file of the IV Addirional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The accused shorr"'n thereon are D.Dodda VKAV Prasad Rao lpetitioner herein], D.Srinivas Rao [A2], Shaik Muneeruddin [A3]. They admrtted the charges under Sections 324,448 read with 34 of IPC and a lenient view is taken and they- were sentenced to pay hne only.

19. In K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresanr6, the Supreme Court at paragraph No.8 held as under: 'Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory alld is exercised to ensure courts ald tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exerciscd in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribuna-l assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse malner". 2O.1 In Ashok Transport Agencyl, the Supreme Court held that suit having been f,rled against a dead person, decree was a nullity and could not be executed. Proprietor having died, the proprietary concern was not in existence on the date of filing tle suit and ..." 'u 2o2s scc onLine sc 98s T]ItMR, J C RP.No.3037 of 2023 therefore, the suit could have been filed only ai1 -inst the 1egal representativcs of the deceased proprietor.

20.2 ln Dogiparthi Venkata Satish'] the Supreme ( c urt held that the proprietorship concerned cannot be equatec t:ilher witl'r a company orrl'ith a partnership lirm.

20.3 In Shankar Pinance and investmentsr the S r-rpreme Court held that u:here the payee is a proprietary concerr '.he complaint can be hled b-v the proprietor of the proprietary con: ::n, describing himself as lhe sole proprietor of the 'payee' [whicl L is dealt under Negotiable Instruments Act, 188 11. 2O.4 ln Shiv Narain Chaudharvo the Allahabad il gh Court held that \4,herein notice under S".tio., 1O6 of Transfer rl Properly Act was served in a Company having a commercial : rme by u,hich business lvas carried on by tenants and the tene r <:y was in the name of tenants as private persons and held tha tee framing of the suit is nol defective.

20.5 In Rohit Parushrams the High Court of Andh r r Pradesh held that merely because proprietary concern is not mir Ic an accused, proprietor who acts on its behalf is not entitled to s: rl< relief [which is dealt for quashing of complaint under Section 48 2 of Cr. P. Cl . a !-F\ 'i' i: t2l\s BRMR, J CRP No 3037 of 2023 20-6 In Raghu Lakshminarayanan's caseu Supreme Court held that a proprietary concern is only the business name in which the proprietor of the business carries on the busincss. A suit by or against a concern is by or against the proprietor of Lhe business Deposit of Rents 2l.l In San anraj Yadav', this Court held that at the stage of deciding an application under Order XV(A) Rule 1 ol CPC, it is not necessary for the Courl below lo search for clinching evidence. Thc prima facie tentative material to establish jural relationship is sufficienl to invoke the provisions.

21.2 ln M.B.Chander's case', this Court held that when the quantum of rent is not disputed, trial Court is incompetent to decidc arrears of admitted rent by undertaking summary enquiry to arrive at the rent due or payable on the date of filing the written statement and issue direction to deposit amount of arrears of rent due and to continue to deposit at same rate during pendency of the suit or proceedings before competent Court.

21.3 In Bharath Bhushane, this Court held that the tenant is estopped under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act to question title of landlord, when there is a rental agreement. l3l1s BRMTt, J lRP.Nc,.3037 oi 2023 Reqarding FIR and 161 statement:

22. In Rajendra Singh's case'o Supreme Courl r:ld that the statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not.r substantive piece of evidence. There is no dispute u,ith r:gard to the proposition of lau,. Bable alias Gurdeep Singh's ca ; " is also rvith regard to 161 statements. Gorika Sahdev's case" ,, in respect of the FIR, which has set criminal lalr, machinery into .r c,tion. Allegation that lq.spondent made constructions:

23. In Rangincni Surya Prakash's case'3 High ( ), urt held that when there is a dispute with regard to quantum of E rrears of rent, a {inding in respcct thereof has to be given after tri r and modrfied the order of the lower Court by giving direction to p€ ,he amounts, J less than what w,as directed to be paid towards ar-, zLrs of rent at the same time held that the tenant was unde - ,rbligation to continue pay the rent in future. Denial of title:

24. Asha Rani Gupta's case'o Supreme Court hel,l that denial of title of the plaintiff and denial of relationship o landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, it c r i be held that such a denial simpliciter does not and cann< 1 absolve the 14/1s BRMR, J CRP.No.3037 of 2023 'iI lessee/ tenant to deposit the due arnount of rent-damages for use and occupation.

25. In Firm Vrj ay Nipani Tobacco House's casels, patna High Court held that when a suit is hled rn the name of the firm as defend:rnt, the name of the firm is merely an assumed collective name representing all partners in the case.

26. There is no dispute u'ith regard to the proposirions in respecr of the FIR and 161 statement. The other decisions filed by the petitioner piaintiff, do not come in the way to assist his case in deciding the application for deposit of arrears of rent.

27. The pleadings of the petitioner are inconsistent and they are changed as per the time goes on, which is stated supra. The Trial Court rightly observed that the petitioner failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent, and also arrived at a right conclusion that the petilioner is not entitled for deposit of arrears of rent to a tune of Rs.55,30,OOO / , wit}l future rents at the rate of Rs.7O,000/- per month. The reasoning of the Trial Court in paragraph No.6(h), (i), (u) does not warrant interference of this Court. The petitioner has not made out any grounds to set aside the impugned order and this Court is of the vieu, that there is no inflrmity orflegatity in the '=! BRN4R, J r FP No 3037 of 2023 order passed by the Trial Court. The Civil Revision Fe -ition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 2a. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is disrr s,sed without costs. Miscellaneous petition,ls pending, if any, shall r tand closed. //TRUE COPY// SDi- V. KAVITHA t) :eUTY REGISTRAR ,/ {" $ECTION OFFICER To, Malkajgiri.

1. The file of ll Additional senior civil Judge, tvledchal I lalkaigiri Drstrict. At 2. o;; dd to vl. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY, Atl' ocate [oPUC] 3. One CC to Mr. B RAN/ESH, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies a HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012025 I -.--.,.: : :,(io.'t ' E .el4S ,,J. .) r_) ( ti:E 2ll26 z ORDER CRP.No.3037 of 2023 \v. + )l rrerF9, ---'4,'' The Civil Revision Petition is Dismisserl. 0