The High Court · 2025

4. Manish Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Sri Pramod Kumar Agarwal, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Business, Tenant in Premises No.21-2-11! to 113, situated at bharkaman, Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad, T.G. I

5. Mohith Agarwal, S/o. Late Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Business, Tenant in Premises No,21-2-11 1 to '1 '13, situated at Charkaman, Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad, T.G.

6. Anup Agarwal, S/o. Sri Santosh Kumar Agarwal, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Business, Tenant in Premises No.21-2-11'1 to 113, situated at Charkaman, Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad, T.G.

7. Vipplin Agarwal, S/o. Sri Santosh Kumar Aganval, AgJd about 37 years, Occ. Business, Tenant in Premises No.21-2-1 11 lo 113, situated at Charkaman, Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad, T.G.

8. Ajay Agarwal, S/o. Late Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, Tenant in Premises No.21-2-1'1 '1 to '1 13, situated at Charkaman, Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad, T.G.

9. Pankaj Kumar Aganval, S/o. Late Padam Chand Agarwal, Aged about 66 years, Occ. Business, Tenant in Premises No.21 -2-1 1 1 to 1 1 3, situated at Charkaman, Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad, T.G. 'l0.Smt.Shashi Agarwal, Wo. Late Rajesh KumarAgarwal, A.ged about 66 years, Occ. Business, Tenant in Premises No.21-2-111 kr 113, situated at Charkaman, Gulzar Houz, Hyderabad, T.G. AND PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS Devender Kumar, Sio. Mukund Lal, Aged about 52 years;. Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.1'184, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Te argana RESPONI)ENT/RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the cir lumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl nay be pleased to suspend the operatron of the order passed in R.C.No. 19, l?-015, dated 10-06- 2025, on the file of I Addl. Rent Controller, City Small Causr:s Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. PRAMOD KUMAR KEDII\ Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R A ACHUTHANAND The Court made the following: ORDER THE, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.R.P.No.3518 OF 2025 ORDER ' Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Kedia, leamed counsel for the petitioners; Mr. R.A.Achuthanand, leamed counsel for the respondent and Perused the record.

2. The instant is a civil revision petition which has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 12.08.2025 in I.A.No.1l'7 of 2025 in R.C.A.No.26 of 2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad (for short, 'Appellate Court').

3. The petitioners/appellants filed I.A.No.117 of 2025 in R.C.A.No.26 of 2025 under Section 20(2) of Telangena Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, seeking suspension of the operation of the order dated 10.06.2025 in R.C'No.l97 of 2015 passed by the I Additional Rent Controller, City.Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'trial Court').

4. Vide imptgned order dated 12.08.2025, the Appellate Court, having found no prima facie case for grant of suspension of the 2 order dated 10.06.2025 in R-C.No.i97 of 2025 pass,)(r by the Trial Court, has disrnissed I.A.No. I 17 of 2025 in R.C.A N t.26 of 2025.

5. Vide order dated t0.06.2025, the Trial Corrrr had partly allowed R.C.No. l9i of 2015 filed by the respcndenr herein, quantifl/ing thc fair rent of @ Rs.5 I , 135/_ per month from the date of petition i.e., 11.08.2015, againsr rhe claim of Rs. 1,g3,000/_ per month in respeu of the premises bearing lrlo.2 I -2_ i i l, admeasuring 1.461 square feet, situated at Charkaman, Hyderabad. The Trial Court further directed to enhance the reut la) 5o/o for every two years fiom the date of disposal of the RC or the existing rate of rent in respect of petition schedule premises. In addition, the Trial Cour1, also directed for payment of ar.re,ars to the respondent herein within six months from the date of thcl onrer. 6 The petition schedule prernises was initially takJn on rent at around Rs. 14001- per month. However, as there ha,l been no subsequent enhancement of rent, the landlord had filecl F:.c.No.r97 of 2015 before the Tnal Court and the Trial Court, virlr order dated

10.06.2025, upon considering the factuar matrix of tht ,:ntire case and the fact that the properfyis situated in an area falrinq w.ithin the 3 commercial market range, had fixed the fair rent @ Rs.51,135/- per month from the date of petition i.e., 11.08.2015.

7. Considering that the area where the suit schedule premises situates, this Court is of the considered opinion that the fair rent fixed by the Trial Court cannot be said to be exorbitant in today's context, where the cost of the properties are skl, ocketing, particularty in Hyderabad. more particutarly' in Old City area, which is a highly commercial center.

8. Insofar as the arrears of rent is concerned, it is noted that the Trial Court granted six months time from 10.06.2025 to the petitioners to pay the alrears. Moreover, there does not seem to be I \ any specific mechanism available to the authorities concemed for executing such an order. Consequently, the only...ldy available to the respondent is to initiate appropriate suit for recovery of the arrears, which has already been hled.

9. Today, learned counsel representing both the parties has informed the Court that the appeal itsetf is listed for hearing on

10.12.2025. This Court does not t". iny reason why the appeal cannot be heard and decided on the next date of hearing, which in 4 itself would resolve the whole dispute as to whethel the petitioners are liable to pay the enhanced rent quantified by tnr: Trial Court Thereafter, the suit prelerred by the respondent pursuant to the order dated 10.06.2025 can be,proceeded and deci,ir:d, strictly, in accordance with law.

10. In view thereof, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed oL However, it is made clear that the Appellate Arrthonty, while deciding the appeal, should not be in any manner inf uenced by any of the observations made by this Bench in the courst: rtf disposal of the present revision petition. There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendin1., if any, shall stand closed. SD/- AHMdb ABDULLAKHAN ASSISiTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// \ \ SECTION OFFICER To, g

1. The Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, H'rclerabad 2. One CC to SRl. PRAMOD KUMAR KED|AAdvocate [O]JCI 3. One CC to SRl. R A ACHUTHANAND Advocate [OPUC' 4. Two CD Copies ASR/PSI- HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025 c pI OFI ,NS' F d ) f ...\ !tl + cl'j - -..:. ORDER CRP.No.3518 of 2O2S DTSPOSING OF THE CRP t .,\5