The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS AND

1. It//s. SAP Associates, a partnership Firm, Having its principal office situated at H.No. 17-81, Road No. 4, Srinagar Colony, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad -60. Also at. R/o. H.No. 2-91, Sy.No. 2-92, Sy.No. 19, Gandhamguda Village, Peeramcheruvu, situated at Bandlaguda Suncitv, Hyderabad.

2. P. Srinivas Reddy S/o. Not know to the petitioner, Aged l\ilajor, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 17-81, Road No. 4,Srinagar Colony, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad -60.

3. Srikanth Nampally S/o. Not know to the Petitioners, Aged. Maior, Occ. Busines, s/o not know to the Petitioner, Aged . major, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 17-81 , Road No. 4,Srinagar Colony, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad -60. 4. Ashok Reddy Papagiri S/o. Not know to the Petitioners, Agede. Maior, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 17-81, Road No. 4,Srinagar Colony, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad -60. 5, V.Prabhakar Reddy S/o. Not know to the Petitioners, Aged Major, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No. 17-81, Road No. 4,Srinagar Colony, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad -60. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS IA NO 10 F 2023 ",r"rr3;,1,:""i :?j,1::.11"" 151 rtw order 41 Rure 5 cpc prayins thar in the in support.or tre'peiiiio'n,',L"11,gn court may be preased ,1"^.11!::'t.filed zoii1,;i ii:liBT,.rri: ;rBK,l,"J ,";,"Ji;;,,j:il^f r1:r;, j; rA No 36a flX,:T:l".Elror civir J,ase nansa?;;il b;;:l: L B Nasar, pendins disposar "i Counsel for the petitioner: SRt SHARAD SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents: Sri T. Surya Satish The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE P.SREE SUDHA CryIL REVISION PETITION No. 3L32 of 2023 9BPEBI This Civil Revision Petition is fited aggrieved by the order' dated 18.07.2023, passed in I.A.No'364 of 2023 in I'A'No'419 of 2O2O in O.S.No.761 of 2O2O by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar'

2. O.S.No.761 of 2O2O is liled by petitioners/plaintiffs against respondents/ defendants for eviction and recovery of rental arrears. During the pendency of the suit, I'A'No'419 of 2020 was Iiled by petitioners to direct respondents to deposit the monthly rental arrears of Rs.23,38,0OO/- to the petitioners' The trial Court allowed the application on O2'O7 '2022 ' I.A.No.364 of 2023 was hled by petitioners under rule 232 and 233 of Civil Rules of Practice for withdrawal an amount of Rs.24,03,000/-. The trial Court dismissed the application on 1A.O7.2O23. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court' the petitioners herein filed the present Civil Revision Petition'

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record' !- 2

4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that there is no dispute reg;rrding the relationship of landlord and tenant. Respondenls in a counter filed in I.A.No.419 of 2O2O stated that they are liable to pay the amount of Rs.89,000 I - per month towards rent. Delendants stated that they have spend Rs.20,00,000/ lor construction of shed and it was disputed by petitioners ernd stated that it is to be worked out at the time ol vacating th<: premises as the same maybe in ttre nature of security deposit. The trial Court did not appreciate that the rents are being deposited to be withdrawn by the landlords only and not by anV other person. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the ordcr of the trial Court.

5. O.S.No.76l of 2O2O was filed by plaintiff No. I along with her husband praying the Court to direct defendants to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of suit schedule property and then direc t tl-rem to pay Rs.23,38,O00/- towards arrears of rents to plainrifls from 01.09.2016 to 31 .IO.2O2O and future rents and also to pay Rs.10,OO0/- per day towards future mesne profits. Dr-rring the pendency of the suit, it is stated that 3 plaintiff No. I as a landlord has entered into lease agreement dated 19.08.2016 rn respect of the premises admeasuring 5000 Sq.ft., bearing H.No.2-92 in Sy.No. 19, Gandhamguda village, Peeramchervuvu, Hyderabad for a period of 10 years commencing from O1.09.2016 at the monthly rent (rr) R5.29 ,". Sq.ft exclusive of the electricity and water charges and it is to be enhanced at the rate of lOo/o for every two years. Plaintilfs have handed over the vacant possession of the premises on

19.08.20 16 and the defendants have commenced business form O1.O9.2076. Defendants paid Rs.5 lakhs towards interest free refundable security deposit.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings, I.A.No.419 of 2020 rvas filed by petitioners to direct respondents to deposit the monthly rental arrears of Rs.23,38,OOO/- to the petitioners and the same was allowed on O2.O7.2O22. Aggrieved by the same, respondents filed C.R.P.No.25O I of 2022 and the same was disposed of on 09 . 12.2022 directing the defendants to deposit the admitted rent of Rs.89,000/- before the trial Court instead of paying it to the plaintilfs directly and the trial Court -r-- 4 shall adjudi< ate the matter at the time of finalizing the suit and also directecl that defendants shall pay the admitted rents as directed by t l-re trial Court within a period of two months and shall continue to pay the admitted rents every month regularly without any dclault till the disposal of the main suil. Basing on the said order, the amount was deposited in the trial Court as such plaintilf No.2 sought for permission for issuance of cheque of Rs.24,03.000/- in his name. Plaintiff No.2 stated that plaintiff No. 1 is his mother and plaintiff No.3 is his wife. The trial Court di:smissed I.A.No.364 of 2023 on the ground that in the CRP it is specilically directecl the defendants to deposit the amount insterrd of paying it to plaintiffs, as such the amount was depositecl in thc trial Court and the suit is coming for framing of issucs as such plaintiffs are not entitled for withdrawal of the said amount. Aggrieved by the said order, this Civil Revision Petitior-r is preferred.

7. There u'zrs specific direction of this Court passed by the Contemporary Bench that Rs.89,000/- as admitted rents and it should be paicl wrthin two months from the date of the order 5 and also shall continue to pay the rents every month and the order in CRP was passed on 09. 12.2022. There is no dispute regarding landlord and tenant relationship and there is no dispute regarding the admitted rent of Rs.g9,OOO/_ and the said amount is already deposited in the trial Court. Even the Contemporary Bench also directed the defendants to pay the rents and the landlord is entitled for the said amounts. As per the lease agreement, the business was commenced from OL.O9.2O16 onwards and defendants have to pay the rents to the landlord and also shall continue to pay .the same to plaintiffs. The issue regarding the securit5r deposit and the amounts spent for construction will be decided by the trial court in the main suit and the Suit itself is liled for eviction and handing over the possession of the suit schedule property and also for future mesne prolits and the said facts can be decided in the main suit and the landlord cannot be deprived of receiving the rents to an extent of Rs.24,03,O00/-. When the Court directed the defendants to deposit the amount in the Court instead of paying to plaintiffs, it cannot be said that plaintiffs are not entitled for the cheque amount. I I .-- 6 B. In the restrlt, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the trial Court dated lB.O7 .2023, passed in I.A.No.364 of 2023 in I.A.No.419 of 2O2O tn O.S.No.76 1 ,>[ 2O2O. Landlord is entitled for the a(lmitted rents that to lor u'ithclrawal of Rs.24,03,00O/- within one week from the date of r-eceipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscell;eneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. i/TRUE COPY// SD/- P.PADMANABHA REDDY NT REGISTRAR ASS ION OFFICER To, VIl 1 2 3 4 The lll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. One CC to Sri Sharad Sanghi, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri T. Surya Satish, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies )s_ HIGH COURT PSS, J DATED: 031Ct112025 {HE Sr4 c U I 19 rrB 2025 ( ( ( { ORDER CRP.No.3132 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CRP /// tq' ) q( (x;) \