Sri Kuldeep Soni and another v. Satyanarayana and

THEHoNouRABLEsMT.JUSTICERENUI(AYARA 1 Between: Sri Kuldeep Soni and another . . . Petitioners / defendants Sri V. Satyanarayana and 2 others . . .Respondents/ Plaintiffs ORDER: Heard Mr. Mohd. Abdul Quadeer, learned counsel for 1. the petitioners/defendants and Mr. sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs. Perused the record,

2. This civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners/defendants aggrieved by the Order dated 08.1 t.2024 passed in I.A.No.543 of 2024 in o.s.No.259 of 2o24 on the file of the XVII Additional senior civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad, wherein, a petition filed under order XV-A of CPC has been allowed directing the revision petitioners to pay a-n amount of Rs.17,OO,OOO/- toward,s arrears of rent from 03 .0 7 .2023 to 04 .06 .2024 , Rs. rg ,6T 2 / - toward.s arrears of properq/ tax, Rs.ST,L63l- towards arrears of erectric charges, Rs.5,91i2 towards arrears of water charges, totally Rs.17,8 -1,,827 /- on or before Lo.L2.2024 and,to pay the monthry rent at Rs.l,Oo,ooo per month on or before 10th of every succeeding month. 3' The brief facts of the case are that the responde:nts/plaintiffs have fired suit for eviction and recovery of possession coupled with recovery of arrears and rrresne prolits against the revision petitioners/defendants with respect to suit scheclule property consisting of building bearing Door No.16-2-",tsL/3 and L6-2-TsL/3/ r, consisting of ground and first floor (buirt up area 2,ro4 sq.Ft.) on plot No.A- 12, admeasu'ing 3oo Sq-yds., sittratecr at sBH colony, saidabad Main Ro.d, saidabad, Hyderabad. There was a rease deecr executed cetween the parties on 03.08.2020 fcr lease of the suit schedule property for monthly rent of Rs.60 ,ooo / - for a period of two (2) years and monthry rent of Rs. r ,00,000 /- after two (21 years fronr 03.08.2022 onu,ards. The revision petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.6O,O00/_ as advance towards the premises and the same was refunclabre. Trre rease deed is ( I It t ::3:: signed by the revision petitioners in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, the revision petitioners were irregular in payments of rents. In addition, the revision petitioners who are not doctors have posed as doctors and. have collected huge amounts towards medical fees and also obtained hand loans from several patients. Further, they also have caused death of several patients by posing as doctors though they were npt qualified doctors. Due to the acts of the revision petitionersi complaint was lodged before the vII Additional chief lVterropolitan Magistrate, Nampalry, Hyderabad and the porice registered a criminal case in FIR No.3sg of 2o2B dated 03.1o.2q23 against the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 406, 4ls, 42o, 42s,304-A a,d 5o6 of Ipc. Thereafter, due to irregular payments of rents, the respo4dents got termination notice dated o9.os.2o24 issued demanding the revision petitioners to pay arrears of rent of Rs.14,oo,o0 o /- and, Rs.2,00,o00/- towards damages arld mesne profits. said notice was got returned by the revision petitioners. tn the circtrmstances, suit for eviction was filed.

4. Upon receiving summons in the suit, the revision petitioners have filed written statement denying executing the

2.4:l lease deed dated 03.08.2020. Further, according to the revision petitioners, the tenancy was oral with monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- only. Said amount was paid by cash, including the electricity bills and the respondents have taken advance of Rs.8,OO,OOO /- at the time of oral lease. The unregistered lease agreement is a fabricated document created for the purpose of the case. The respondents requestecl the revision petitioners to whitewash and to carry out the repairs and the sarne resulted in expenses of Rs.5,O0,0OO/- for the revision petitioners. The revision pe,titioners denied agreeing to enhance the rent to Rs.1,00,000/- per month with effect from 03.08.2020. The revision petitioners admitted having issued two cheques bearing number 26 and 30 dated 15.02. 2023 and 17 .O2.2O23 for Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.3O,O0O/ - respectively drawn on ICICI Bank, Sidd:iamber Bazar, Hyderabad. But said amount was not paid towards arrears of rent but for security purpose. In addition tc the cheques that are referred by the revision petitioners, there are sorne more blank cheques in the possession of respondents which were taken at the time of taking the r;uit schedule property on rent. onty when there was demand from the respondents for enhancement of rent 1" 1 \l- :5: abnormally, the revision petitioners have refused to do so. Boring grudge due to refusal to enhance the rent, the respondents have lodged a criminal complaint with the police. The revision petitioners denied issuance of termination of notice and being liable to pay arrears of rent, arreal.s of electricity charges, water charges, and property ta>r, totaling to Rs.17,81,827/-. According to revision petitioners, it is clear that there is no cause of action for filing this casg. when the rnatter was coming up for trial, the present petition is filed seeking payrnent of arrears of rent

5. The Trial court, upon examining the pleadings and contentions of both the parties, by placing reliance on judgment in the case of Mohd. shabbir Hussain Khan v. Ram prahash chopra and others [2oo8 (sl ALT I.t2 (s.Bl, allowed the petition directing the revision petitioners herein to pay arrea_rs of rent and arrears of electricity charges, water charges and property tax. Aggrieved by the s€une, the present revision petition is preferred.

6. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the Trial court has not considered the pleadings of the written statement and 6 the disag:eement about the quantum of rent paid. The quantum of rent at Rs.1,00,000 l- per month is disputed and the said issue has to be decided during trial. The Trial Court entertainecl the petition under order xV-A of CpC directing the revision petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.1 T,BL,*r, ,- towards arrears of rent and other taxes together with payment of monthly rent in disposal of the suit. As per the provision under order xv-A of cPC, only admitted rents can be directed to be paid during pendency of the suit, but not disputed rent. Therefore, t.l.e impugned order is liable to be set aside. The revision petitioners disputed receipt of legal notice terminating the tenancy or committing willful default. with respect to quantum of arrears, the revision petitioners called upon the respondents to produce proof in support of the said claim. It is pleaded thrrt there is no evidence a-bout payment of rent of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Further, the revision petitioners pleaded th,at they a-re enjoying only a portion of premises covered by the lease deed and are bound to pay only monthly rent of Rs.:15,000/- from August, 2024 to December 2024. ln spite of lack of documentary evidence, the trial court has ordered payment of monthly rent of Rs.l,oo,ooo /- by failing to I, see that the same is a triable issue to be decided after full- fledged trial. In view of the foregoing, it is pleaded ttrat the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. During arguments, the learned counsel for revision petitioners reiterated the stancl taken in the grounds of revision i.e. there is no documentary evidence to prove the monthly rent. Further, it is contention of the learned counsel fpr revision petitioners that the court can only direct payment of admitted rents under order xv-A of cpc, but not disputed.rent. In the instant case, the revision petitioners have admitted to have paid monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- and therefore t.l.e Trial court ought to have directed payment of Rs.1s,000/- per mon$ rent but not Rs.1,oo,o00/- as claimed by the respondent that too without proof. It is emphasized that the respondentis failed to produce any credible evidence about payment of Rs.1,o0,ooo/- per month as rent to the leased premises. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that said premises would not fetch monthly rent of Rs. 1,0o,ooo /- and also the revision petitioners are not utilizing the entire building but are utilizing only a part of the premises. The revision petitioners admitted issuing the cheques for Rs.1 ,2;o,ooo/- and Rs.3o,0oo/- respectively vide ::8:: cheques dated L5.o2.2o23 and L7.o2.2o23, but claimed said amount tc, be towards security but not arrears of rent. Since there is a dispute about quantum of rent paid by the revision petitioners, it is argued that the impugned order is liabte to be set aside. B. In response, the learned counsel for respondents contended that the revision petitioners have entered into a lease agreement dated 03.08.2020 agreeing to pay rent at Rs.60,000,/- per month for a period of two years and to enhance the rent to Rs.1,oo,oo0 /- per month from 03.08.2022 onr,r,ards. As per said lease agreement, an amount of Rs.6O,O00/- was paid as adrrance to the premises. The premises was agreed to be utilized for the purpose of running the clinic. It is argued that the suit s<:hedule premises is located on the saidabad main road which is commercial in nature and therefore the contention of the revision petitioners that they agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- for running a clinic in the suit schedule lcremises, that too in part of the premises is unsustaina.ble. It is the case of learned counsel for respondcnts that the rt:vision petitioners are utilising the entire building including parking space inside the building and such a. 9 premises of two floors and parking area on the main road of Saidabad carl never be let out for paltry amount of Rs. 15,O0O/- per month. g. With respect to maintainability of the petition, the learned counsel for respondents relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case ofChaitanya Lanka and another v. Suresh Kumar Gupta and othersl, wherein, it is held that for the purpose of ascertaining the payment of admitted rents in a petition under Order XV-A of CPC, frrstly the existence of lease between the parties, the quantum of rent and the period for which the rent was not paid are to be ascertained. When there is a dispute on said aspect, a semblance of inquiry is to be undertaken. In case, the contf,oversy as to existence of arrears is serious, then the same must be dealt at the trial in the suit. tt is further emphasized that the word trndisputed' occurring before the word 'arrears', in Order XIV, Rule XV-A of CPC assumes significance in case there is a dispute with respect to quantum, the court has to I 2014 (5) ALD 744 ::IO:: decide th<: same by dury taking into account the version put forth by both the parties. 10' With respect to the contention of revision petitioners that they have invested Rs.5,o0,ooo/- for repairs and whitewashing of the buifuling, the learned counsel for the respondents referred to the decision in chaitanya Lanka and another (1 supra|, wherein, it is held that the expenditure incurred by the tenants tvas their beneficial use of the premises. Further, reliance is placed upon judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana rrt H-vderabad in the case of Bharat Bhushan sanghi v' Manoj Kumar soni2, wherein, it is herd that a court conducting enquiry in a petition under Order XV-A of CpC has limited jurisdiction. The enquiry is summary in nature. tt is mandatory for the tenant while filing written statement to deposit arr(:ars of rent and to continue to deposit the rents. Such depos:-t of rents has to be made by the tenant even if the Iandlord has not sought rerief of recovery of arrears of rent. Penalty is to be imposed on the tenant if the rent as directed by the court below is not deposited a,d the court is empowered to 2 zozt (s) ALD 3s3 (TS) :: I l:: strike off defence if the defendant continues default in deposit of rent.

11. On the basis of aforementioned citations, the learned counsel for respondents argued that the revision petitioners have agreed the legal status of being tenants but are disputing the qrrantum of rent. It is argued that deliberately the revision petitioners are claiming to have paid paltry amount of Rs. 15,00O/- for a commercial premises situated on the main road. It is argued that the lease agreement shows that the revision petitioners have paid minimum rent of Rs.6O,OOO/- per month when the premises was leased in the year 2020. There was no dispute as to payment of rents up to the year 2022 until there was deliberate default on the part of the revision petitioners in payment of rent. Specifically, there is default in payment of rent from 01.01.2023 onwards. When the respondents insisted for payment of arrears, the cheques dated L5.O2.2O23 end 17.02.2O23 were issued for an amount of Rs. 1,20,000 l- and Rs.30,0OO/- respectively drawn on ICICI Bank, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. It is argued that the revlslon petitioners are unscrupulous people, who without being qualified doctors are running a clinic causing health zzl2:z hazard to il number of people. In addition, they are collecting amounts as hand loans, promising to pay them by misusing their positir>n as impostor doctors.

12. whe;r the rival contentions are considered, it is seen that undisputedly the respondents a-re the landlords and the petitioners are the tenants. There is also no dispute about the revision petitioners entering the suit prernises as tenants in the year 2o2o.'fhe only dispute is with respect to quantum of rents and commir;sion of default in payment of rents. It is seen that according to the respondents, the default in payment of rents occurred from 01.0I.2023 onwar-ds. Then the inference to be drar,vn is that there was no default in payment of rents for a period of two (2) years.

13. The Lrcation of the suit schedule property on the main road of Saiclabad is not disputed. Further, the suit schedule property ha'ring two floors is not disputed. According to the revision petit.ioners, they are only in occupation of portion of the property, nrh,ere?s, according to the respondents, the revision petitioners a.e in occupation of the entire building inclucling rhe parking spaces. ::13::

14. The learned counser for respondents argued that until it is proven that the rease agreement dated o3.og.2o2o is a fabricated clocument, said document prima facie establishes that the total suit schedule premises consisting of ground and first floors with built-up area of 2,100 Sq.Ft. was leased to the revision petitioners for a monthry rent of Rs.6o,ooo/-. It is argued that even in case there is any issue to be proven during trial about payment of Rs. r,oo,ooo/- towards rent ancr prevailing rents in the or€?, the admitted rents have to be take. at Rs.60 ,OOO / - per month.

15. In view of the fact situation, it is not possibte to believe that a premises located on the main road of saidabad was leased out for an amount of Rs.1s,00o/- per month rent. Further, until it is proven that only part of the premises was let out to the revision petitioners, it is to be believed that there is the entire premises in the possession of the revision petitioners. while the burden of proof is on the respondents to prove that the monthly rent is Rs.1,oo,ooo f -, t],e onus of proof wourd be on the revision petitioners to prove that the monthly rent is Rs.15,000/- as claimed by them. :: l4::

16. Comirrg to the aspect of the bounced cheques dated

15.02.2023 and 17.O2.2O23, it is seen that any security would be paid at the commencement of the lease and not after lapse of three years of the lease. The contention of the revision petitioners about issuing the bounced suit cheques towards security for the lease is not believable since the suit for eviction was institu[ed. The termination notice rvas issued on

09.03.2024. Only upon demand for payment of defaulted rent, the cheques were issued according to the respondents. This Court does not see any reason believe the payment of security at a belated stage in the February, 2023. Mere denial of the lease agreemont claiming it to be fabricated at this stage can be a self-servinE; version. Therefore, until contra is proven, the lease agreerrent dated 03.08.2020 which contains the signatures oI the revision petitioners can be taken into consideration Thus, taking the initjal rent of Rs.6O,O00/- per month as argLled by the learned counsel for respondents, the revision petit,oners can be directed to pay a-rrears for said amount. Accordingly, the impugned order passed bv the Trial Court is to be moclified. ::15:: L7. In the resurt, the civil Revision petition is disposed of modi$ring the impugned order dated oB. 1 1.2024 passed in I'A.No.543 of 2024 in o.s.No.259 of 2024 on rhe fire of the XVII Additional senior civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad, to the extent of payment of arrears of rent by the revision petitioners from o3.oL.:2o2s onwards at the rate of Rs.60,00o/_ per month instead of Rs.1,oo,ooo / - per month. Except the said modification, the remaining findings in the impugned order shall remain unaltered. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shalr stand closed. No costs. SD/. AH.S. GOWRI SHANKAR STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER ,l t J To, Telangana 1' The xvll Addr. senior civir Judge city civir courr at Hyderabad 2- one cc to Mr. MOHAMMED ABDUL QUADEER, Advocare [opuc] 3. One CC to Mr. SHARAD SANGHI, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies R('l,sl. HIGH COUIRT ATED i 11i11212025 r-l s14 .) (, ?l JAl'| 2026 i\ i: !::' , ! * t .,i! ORDER CRP.No.4067 of 2024 Accordingtly, this Civil Revision Petition is Disposed of b la/'