Telangana High Court
Syed Farees Ahmed vs Mr. A. Vema Lingam on 22 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.217 of 2025
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing Order dated
03.09.2024 in I.A.No.225 of 2020 in O.S.No.2868 of 2020,
passed by the learned III-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, wherein the application filed by the respondent
under Order XV-A R/w. Section 151 of CPC, was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri Achuthanand, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Sri G.Purushotham Rao, learned Counsel for
respondent.
3. Petitioner herein is defendant and respondent is plaintiff
in the suit.
4. Brief facts of the case which led to filing of the present
revision petition are that respondent herein has filed a suit vide
O.S.No.2868 of 2020, against the petitioner for eviction,
recovery of arrears of rents and for damages; that petitioner
entered appearance; that pending adjudication of the suit,
respondent filed an application vide I.A.No.225 of 2020 under
Order XV-A R/w. Section 151 of CPC, seeking direction to the
2
petitioner to deposit Rs.2,40,500/- towards arrears of rent from
March, 2018 to October, 2020 @ Rs.7,500/- per month and
future rents to the credit of the suit, pending disposal and the
petitioner filed the counter resisting the application. However,
the trial Court vide impugned Order dated 03.09.2024, allowed
the application directing the petitioner to pay arrears of rent of
Rs.2,40,500/- @ Rs.7,500/- per month from March, 2018 to
October, 2020 and a sum of Rs.3,45,000/- from November,
2020 to September, 2024 and further directed the petitioner to
pay monthly rents from October, 2024 @ Rs.7,500/- per month
till the disposal of the suit.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application under
Order XV-A of CPC, it is averred that respondent is the owner of
the suit schedule premises and the same was let out to the
petitioner herein on monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- in the month of
February, 2006, excluding water, electricity and maintenance
charges and that petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards interest free security deposit; that tenancy was oral and
the rent has been enhanced from time to time and the present
rent is Rs.7,500/-; that petitioner committed default in payment
of monthly rents from March, 2018 to October, 2020, therefore,
respondent issued legal notice on 06.10.2020, under Section
3
106 of T.P Act, terminating the tenancy; that petitioner received
the notice and issued reply notice on 21.10.2020, disputing the
payment of monthly rents and the amount of security deposit
paid by him; that respondent got issued rejoinder notice dated
04.11.2020, denying the quantum of rents and also got issued
corrigendum notice dated 19.11.2020.
6. Petitioner filed the counter affidavit resisting the said
application and averred that he is the tenant of the suit
premises on monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-, excluding electricity
and maintenance charges and that he has paid Rs.15,000/-
towards interest free refundable deposit and that agent of the
respondent collected rents regularly including the rent for the
month of September, 2020; that as the agent of the respondent
refused to receive the rent for the month of October, 2020, he
remitted the rent through Money Order and the same was
refused and Money Orders sent subsequently were also refused
intentionally and deliberately to make the petitioner as
defaulted; and that as per the provisions of Section 8(1) to 8(5)
of Telangana (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960,
petitioner has issued a notice to the respondent calling upon
him to furnish the Bank Account Number and the name of the
Bank to enable him to deposit the monthly rents, but the
4
respondent refused to furnish the same and further denied the
dues, arrears of rents and prayed to dismiss the application.
7. The trial Court on due consideration of pleadings and
contentions put forth by both the parties, allowed the
application vide impugned Order dated 03.09.2024, aggrieved
by the same, present revision petition is filed.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
trial Court without properly appreciating the facts and
circumstances of the case, allowed the application. He further
submitted that the petitioner has not committed any default
and all the efforts made by the petitioner to pay the rents
through Money Order and also to deposit the rent in the Bank
Account were refused and resisted by the respondent, as such
there is not default on the part of the petitioner, this aspect was
not appreciated by the trial Court. He also stated that the trial
Court erroneously observed that suit premises will fetch rent of
Rs.7,500/- per month, without placing any material when there
is serious dispute with regard to quantum of rent. He further
submitted that the trial Court has not conducted any enquiry
while determining the quantum of rent as Rs.7,500/- per month
5
and thus, the impugned Order is unsustainable and is liable to
be set aside.
9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent would
submit that the suit premises are let out in the month of
February, 2006 and the same was enhanced from time to time
and it was Rs.7,500/- per month as on the date of filing of the
suit in the year 2020. He further submitted that the contention
of the petitioner that committed rent is only Rs.3,500/- is
incorrect and rent cannot be static for a period of 14 years,
therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application by
duly considering all the facts and circumstances of the case in
proper perspective and thus prayed to dismiss the revision
petition.
10. Perusal of the record would disclose that admittedly, there
is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties
as landlord and tenant, however the arrears of rent are in
dispute. According to the respondent monthly rent is Rs.7,500/-
and monthly rent is due from March, 2018, whereas, according
to the petitioner monthly rent is Rs.3,500/- and he paid rent up
to September, 2020. The trial Court considering the contentions
of both the parties as well as the documents placed on record
6
i.e., Exs.P1 to P8 on behalf of the respondent and Exs.R1 and
R2 on behalf of the petitioner, held that contention of the
petitioner that monthly rent is Rs.3,500/- is not believable. The
trial Court further observed that the suit premises is situated in
a prominent place of area of Basheer Bagh and that the monthly
rent cannot be static and relied upon the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in M.B.Chander Vs. Balakrishna Rao
Charitable Trust, 1 and has come to conclusion that the
contention of the petitioner that monthly rent is Rs.3,500/-
basing on Exs.R1 and R2 was not acceptable and ultimately
held that monthly rent is Rs.7,500/- as contended by the
respondent and thus, allowed the application.
11. It is also relevant to note that the trial Court has
meticulously examined Ex.R1, relied upon by the petitioner in
support of his contention that monthly rent is Rs.3,500/- and
observed that entries made in the said note book are from the
year 2006, but all the pages in the said note book look very
fresh and that there are no traces of absorption of ink in any of
the entries made in the said note book, though they are made
since 2006, even after lapse of 18 years and thus, the trial
Court did not rely on the said note book.
1
2016 SCC Online Hyd 301
7
12. In M.B.Chander Vs. M/s.Balakrishna Rao Charitable
Trust, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Court is competent and
is under an obligation to make summary enquiry under Order
XV-A Rule 2 of CPC, as to the rent payable for the premises and
arrears due by the tenant, otherwise, it amounts to encouraging
the unscrupulous tenants who intend to avoid payment of rents
for the premises in their occupation for decades together which
would certainly result in substantial loss to the landlord during
the pendency of the eviction suit or proceedings based on
account of abortive pleas raised by the unscrupulous tenants.
13. In considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has
considered facts and circumstances of the case in proper
perspective and also examined the material placed on record in
detail as well as the location potentiality of the suit premises
and has come to proper conclusion. This Court does not find
any irregularity or illegality in the Order passed by the trial
Court, warranting interference by this Court. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted two months
time for payment of arrears of rents from today.
8
14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
DATE: 22.07.2025
tri
[ad_1]
Source link