The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 127 of 2021 on the tite of the Hon'ble XXIV Addl Chief Judge, City Civil Court, including by suspending the operation of the order dated 16.04.2024 passed in lA. No. 91 of 2021 in OS No. 127 of 2021, pending disposal of the above C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioner Sri A Venkatesh, Senior Counsel Rep. Sri Tarun G Reddy Counsel for the Respondents Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, Senior Counsel Rep. Sri Sarvani Desiraju The Court made the followiflg Order : 7 \ THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEFJU STICE SUJOY PAUL CTVIL REVISION PETITION No. 324L of2O24 ORDER: Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Tarun G.Redd.y, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Sarvani Desiraju, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. With the consent, frna-lly heard'

3. This ci'"'il revision petition under Article 227 of ttre Constitution of lndia takes exception to ttre order dated 16.04.2024 in I.A.No.9 1 of 2021 in O'S'No'127 of 2O2l passed by the learned XXIV Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the application preferred by the respondents/ plaintiffs, who are the landlords' under Order XV-A read u'ith Section t 5 I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19OB (CPC), was allowed in part' 2 4, The contention of the petitioner/defendant, who is the tenant, is that as per the admitted facts, a registered Iease deed was executed between the landlords and t.Ile erstwhile management of the tenant on 28.06.2014, wherein the rent was fixed as Rs.SO,OOO/- per month. Thereafter, an unregistered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered into between the erstwhile management on 03.04.2016 fixing the rent.of Rs.3,5O,0OO/- per month. Thereafter, a registered Addendum Lease Deed was entered into between the present tenant/ subsequent management and the landlords on 23. I I .2017 , whereby the rent was decided as Rs.50,OOO/- per month.

5. The two-fold submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/defendant are that i) In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.Santoshamma v. D.Saralat, a registered deed wiU prevail over an unregistered document. Since the Addendum Lease Deed, dated 23. 1 | .2O 17 , is a registered document, in view of ' (2020) t9 scc 80 3 Section 5O of the Registration Act, 1908, this document must prevail; ii) the rent mentioned in the Addendum [,ease Deed, dated 23. ll.2Ol7, i'e', Rs 50,OOO/- per month will bind the parties and not the Rs'3,OO,OOO/- as decided by tJre Court.

6. Sounding a contra note, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/ plarntiffs submits that a plain reading of the language used in Order XV-A of CPC shows that tte trial Court was competent to decide the quantum of rent on the basis of admission of parties or upon an enquiry' In the instant case, the petitioner/ defendant, who is the tenant, itself admitted before the Court below that it was payrng rent of Rs.3,OO,OOO/- per month' The attention of this Court is drawn to paragraph Nos'4(d) and 9 of the counter aJhdavit filed by the petitioner/ defendant before the Court belou', which read thus: "4{d). I subrnit lhat the erstwhilc management of the Society (Respondent herein) had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Petitioners / Pla intifls herein and had agreed to pay an amount ol Rs.3,50,O00/ - per month as rent for the Scheduk: Properry but as per some mutual I I t 4 understanding, paid only an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- per month until 2017, when the present management of the Society (Respondent herein) took over and registered an Addendum base Deed with the Petitioners/ Plaintiffs herein.

9. I submit that with respect to the contents in Para 4, the averment that though the amount of lease rent was mentioned to be Rs.SO,OOO/- per month subject to an enhancement of 5olo every 5 years, it was always agreed between the Parties, given the location of the kased Premises and the vast extent of the premises, which included playground, etc., a monthly rent of Rs.3,5O,OOO/- was initially agreed to be paid \Mith 5o/o enhancement each year and the same was reflected in an MOU executed between the Petitioners and Respondents is incorrect and denied. I submit that the MOU executed for the said additional pa5rment of rent has been executed by the representative of the Society is not a registered document and the Petitioners herein are put to strict proof of the same. I submit that the averment that as per the understandins between the Parties , the Respondent until 2O17 had paid an amount of Rs.3,00,OOO/- per month is not denied. I submit that t] e said arrangement was with the previous management of the Respondent-Society until 2017 and came to arr end when the Parties executed and registered the 5 Addendum dated 23'lL'2017 to the lease Deed dated,28.06'2014 with the new management of the Respondent SocietY'" (EmPhasis SuPPlied) In paragraph No'12 of the counter affidavit filed 7. before the triat Court' it was clearly admitted that due to the petitioner / tenant was Paymg Covid-19 Pandemic' schedule ProPerty to the tune of rental amount for Rs.1,23,750/- for period 'of two months i'e'' Rs'61'875/- per month, excluding TDS' Thus' it is projected that as per the admission of the present petitioner, he himself was paying more than Rs'50'OO0/- for the period in question' In view of the admission of the petitioner/ defendant 8. and palrment of rent of Rs'3'OO'000/- for some time ' no fault can be found in the order of the Court below' karned Senior Counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs placed reliance on K'Mallikarjuna v' S'Anassuya Deviz and M.B.Chand'er v' M/s' Balakrishna Rao Charitable Trusts. '? 2009 scc online AP 233 i r 20l6 scc online HYd 3o I 2009 (4) Al-D 152 : 20 l7 (l) ALD 68 ::]:::::j_:-:=:j1+ I 7 6

9. No other point is raised by the parties.

10. Heard the parties at length-

11. Order XV-A reads thus: re Dresenti ng "ORDER XV-A (l) In a suit for recovery of possession, on termination of lease, or licence, with or without a prayer for recovery of arrears of rent, or licence fee, known with whatever description, the defendant, while filing his written statement, shall deposit the the undisouted arrears amount, calculated up to that date into the Court and shall continue to deposit such amount, which becomes payable thereafter within one week from the date on which it becomes due, till the judgment is rendered in the suit. (2t Whether the defenda nt pleads in the written statement that no arrears o[ rent or licence fee exists, it shall be comDetent for the Court to Dass an order in this regard, after affordin S ODDO rtunity to both the parties, and in case anv arnount is found due . the defendant shallbeu nder oblieation to deposit the same, within the time stipulated by t]le Court and continue to deposit the amount which becomes payable thereafter, as provided under rulc I . 7 Prourd.ed that the time stipulated for payment of amount, as aforesaid, may be extended by the Court for reasons to be recorded for a period not exceeding 15 daYs. If the defendant commits default in making the deposits, as aJoresaid, the Court shall strike off the defence. On such deposit it shall be competent for the plaintiff to withdraw the same. Explonatton.-{he expression'the amount representing the undisputed areas" shall mean the sum of rent, or licence fee calculated for the period for which it remained unpaid, after deducting from it, any amount. (a) paid as tax, to a local authority, in respect of the property, (bl paid to the plaintiff under written acknowledgment; and (c) deposited into the Court, in any proceedings, in relation to the said property."- A.P. Gazette, 23-2-2OO5, Pt' I' Extra., P. I (No. 1O3)." (Emphasis Supplied)

12. 1r., 6.1y[altit<qrjuna (supra] and M.B.Chander (supra), the Court held that undisputed payment of rent is a relevant factor. Even the statute i.e., Order XV-A says so 8 The relevant paragraphs of the counter affrdavit flrled by the petitioner/defendant before the Court below reproduced hereinabove make it clear that the petitioner/defendant, admitted about the said rent and even paid it until 2017' Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned order is based on any extraneous factor or on impermissible ground' In view of the admission of the petitioner/ defendant, the view taken by the Court below is in consonance with the statutory mandate and is a plausible view'

13. The matter may be viewed from another angle ' In the impugned order, the trial Court recorded as under at paragraPh Nos.2l to 26: "21. As per the own admission of the respondents, the erstwhiLe management of lhe college paid rcnts at the rate of Rs.3,OO,OOO/ - per month till the change of management on 23.11.2017. The change of management was incorporated by way of execution of a registered Addendum on 23-11-2O17 (Ex.P-3) to the registered lease deed (Ex.P-2). There is no agreement between the petitioner and the new management i'e', respondent io. pry-.nt of rents for the leased p."-*i"a" at raie of lesser rents than agreed Rs.3,0O,OO0/-. When the previous management admittedly paid rents at the rate of Rs 3,OO,0OO/- per month till the change of managemcnt, how the respondent expects and comes to conclusion that the p.titiott". would accept rents at the rate of ifs.5o,O00/ - per month as shown in lcase clecd for the in absence of any me mclrandum of 'tuiiding 9 i t to that effect ts. The cmcial aspect he to that effect. The understanding in u'ritinC the Prevlous admitting respondent is management Paid rents at tlte rate of Rs.3,OO,OOO/- per month for the leased premrses In view of such ad mission, this court caII not exPect the resPondent to pay rents at the rate of more particularly in ln lease absence of anv written instrumen not be understand. Therefore , the necessar5l inference is that the resPondent who became new manage ment of the societY also shall pay rents at the same rate of month to the same building. Even Rs.3 oo ooo otherwise, the amount of rent stated in the registered lease deed is too a smdl sum in a citY like Hyderabad for any commercial Property. It is not uncommon for the owners of the tenants to enter into the agreement and suPPlementary agreement regardi ng actual rent asons known to tlte parties and to avoid lor the re s show less rent tn payment of stamP duty the partie re rs the regls tered documen that the respo ndent is admitting the payment o[ rents per month bY the at the rate previous management' When the new management wanted to PaY rents as Per lease deed, contrary to payment ol rents paid bY the erstwhile management, such understanding should have been reduced ln to writing. But that was not done' 22. However the submission of the respondent that ""i"=L""i." "f an additional building is not. delivered so the respondent need l3l pty I""-tf,. lot r u,-.lait'e inttuding- the additional ;;";";-;fi; ptjl:'"::l: building q'hich is in the possession o[ T': ."" U"" taken into consideration while dtrectrng ,""oonde.,t to pay rents and arrears of rents lt is ;;iJ;;; h... to look into the actual suit premises to have an idea thereof' 23. The let out premises is consisting of the (a) -o.op..ay bearing Hbuse No'9-1-3641R 184 havrng G + having total built up area of 16544. Sq'Feet 5 il;; rarlmeasurins 264 sq yardsl along with- (b) a play ;,r;J aa rieasuring 45,965 Sq' feet (ad. measurtng ;;J 1.1 .-" additional building bearing No E;;';*J"i of Rs.3,00,000/- -...p""dent l0 9-L-364lAl8llA,B, C and D having built up area of 26,907 Sq feet, cornprising of G+4 floors which is schedule property on lease.

24. As per the contention of the petitioners which can also be seen from the plaint that the respondent never occupied the (C) property i.e, an additiona.l building bearing No. 9-f -364/A /81 /A, B, C and D having built up zrrea of 26,907 Sq feet, comprising of G+ 4 floors and that the same was included in t]le lease deed as there was a minimum requirement of area prescribed for CBSE school. It is the further contention of the petitioners that tl.e said (C) property was let out to others (third parties). According to the petitioner, even without this property, the lease rental amount was always agreed to be Rs.3,50,OOO / - per month as shown in MOU/Ex.P1.

25. Thus it is an admitted fact that the physical possession of additional building i.e. House bearing Municipal Nos. 9-1-36418/81, A, B, C, D comprising of Ground, First, Second, Third and Fourth floors having a built up area of 26,907 l-Sq. Feet all situated at Gandhi Nagar, Bapu Ghat, Langar House of Golconda Village Maldal, Hyderabad District is never delivered to the respondent society.

26. The above contention of the petitioners makes it clear that out three properties only two properties described under (a) and (b) were qiven in lease and the ttrird property ie., (C) property an additional building bearing No. 9-l-364lA/8ll{,8, C and D having built up area of 26,907 Sq fect, comprising of G + 4 floors, was neither given in lease nor its possession was ever delivered to the respondent. The respondent thus required to pay rents to suit premises consisting of two properties i.e, (a) and ibl shown as above. The version o[ the petitioners is that t].e rent at tf-Ie rate of Rs.3,5O,OOO/- was agreed to pay only for ttre above two building excluding the third building. This contcntion of the petitioners seems not reasonable nor finds any support from any, material on record. When the rents were agreed to pay at enhalced rate than mentioned in registercd 1S TCtrUSCS to two executing a seParate lease deed(Ex.P2) bY Memorandum of understanding (Ex.Pl), the same fact rhat the enhanced rents should be paid onlY for wo premises bY excluding the third buitding which was mentioned in the lease deed also has to be mentioned in MOU, lnstead of that, as could be seen from MOU, the enhan ced rents was hxed for the total leased oroDerw which includes the additional building also The intentton of the Parties to PaY rents at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- has to be ou. &cluding the third buil MOU/Ex.PI is to The very PurPose of express the intentlon of the Parties otherwrse mentioned in lease deed In absence of such intention he same rent for two Premrses by excluding third building in the MOU it is diJlicult to take the version of the petitioner into consideration' 27. As could be seen, both parties have calculated. the amounts of rents as per their respective verslons to the adjustments of excessive paid rents' ;;i;;; ;;unts with the petitioners etc' Both ;;;;.;;d .,r.ti.s also filed statements of calculations of arrears ;f ;;," t; support of their arguments- and versions Ex'Rl' But this court not ,r.a.. B* p+ io pS i,-,.ii,'rea to toot lnto the said calculations so as to J..iE" ir, .*...tness at this stage since the original .rii-1r".a po"t"d foi--Ii'l' ihe correctness of calculations, adjustments as submitted by both pl.,*.'*,ri Le decided in the trial onlv' ryf ,p^1*it" lre at liberty to put th-eir contentions by leading Iria.".. in the trial. After full trial, it will be decided u,ho u'ould be u'hom and how much'" required to PaY "t'a (EmPhasis SuPPlied) 14 As per Order XV-A, the Court is competent to frx a provisional rent a'fter allording opportunity to both the parties. [n order to fix such rent' the Court considered the previous amount of rent for same schedule property' the t2 €rrea where it is situated and other relevant factors and took view which cannot be said to be an impossible view. The Clause (2) of Order XV-A provides that even if defendant pleads in the written statement that no arrears of rent are due to be paid, tl:re Court is still competent to pass an order in this regard and fix provisiona_l rent after providing opportunity to both the parties. The trial Court meticulously followed the said procedure and after taking into account the averments of the written statement arrd certain admissions-teok a plausible view.. In view of this peculiar factual backdrop, the judgments cited by the leamed counsel for the petitioner cannot be pressed into servlce.

15. The trial Court has taken a plausible view. The scope of interference under Article 22T of the Constitution is limited. If the impugned order is passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, order suffers from any patent illegality or palpable procedr:ral impropriety, interference can be made. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. This Court cannot act as bull in the china shop to interfere l3 n on mere asking (see Shalini Shyam Shetty rrs' Rajendra Shankar Patila). In the instant case, there is no ingredient on which interference can be made'

16. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed' There shall be no order as to costs' Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed' Sd,- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TTRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER --\- To, The xXVl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad One CC to Sri Tarun G Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to Sri Sarvani Desiraju, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies 1 2 J 4 Vtukam ' (to to) 8 st't l:'t HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 ORDER CRP.No.3281 of 2024 1 dE SI^\7 ( a Q^ 2 4 FIB 2025 t oSsparcti €O l !l ( t I C. j DISMISSING THE CRP