ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed in I.A.No.102 of 2023 in O.S.No.1002 of 2022, by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Malkagiri, dated 18.08.2023. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant in the suit. Petitioner has filed I.A.No.102 of 2023 in O.S.No.1002 of 2022 under Order XV(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to direct the respondent - defendant to pay arrears of rent of Rs.55,30,000/- from 01.04.2016 to 30.11.2022 at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month and future rents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has requested the petitioner that he intended to start business in the name and style of M/s. Green Mint India Agree Tech Private Limited and requested to let out the suit schedule property viz., all that plot bearing No.66, 67, 68 and 69 in Survey No.229 to 246, admeasuring 1200 sq.yard, consisting of Godown and shed etc situated at B.N. Reddy Nagar, Charlapally, R.R. District, bounded by : North : Neighbours Plot; South : Road; East : Road; and West : Neighbours Plot. Accordingly, the suit schedule property is let out to the respondent on 01.06.2013 on monthly rent of Rs.70,000/- per month. Later on 17.08.2013, the revision petitioner has executed lease deed on the request of the respondent, which shows that the respondent is the proprietor of M/s. Artpak Solutions and there is no document to show that respondent is running business in the name and style of M/s. Green Mint India Agree Tech Private Limited. The Court below failed to see that Ex.P6 is the lease deed dated 17.08.2013, which is submitted by the respondent before the Southern Power Distribution Company of T.S. Limited, to obtain electricity connection to the suit schedule property. As per the lease deed dated 17.08.2013, the monthly rent is Rs.40,000/- and the Court below ought to have ordered to pay Rs.40,000/- at least in I.A.No.102 of 2023. As per the lease deed dated 17.08.2013, the monthly rent is Rs.40,000/- and the Court below ought to have ordered to pay Rs.40,000/- at least in I.A.No.102 of 2023. The Trial Court failed to see that the respondent did not file any document to show that he is running M/s. Green Mint India Agree Tech Private Limited in the suit schedule property and wrongly came to a conclusion that the petitioner failed to implead the said company as defendant in the suit and the petitioner is not entitled for any rents at any stage. 4. Respondent is harping on Exs.R2 and R4 and the schedule property is let out in the year 2017 to the respondent, which ought to have been accepted. The Trial Court ought to have passed order basing on Ex.P6 – lease deed dated 17.08.2013. The respondent is enjoying the premises without paying any rent. Even in Ex.R1, it is mentioned that the schedule property is let out on lease in the year 2017 and that the petitioner has established by filing documents that the respondent is a tenant, in support of his contentions has relied on the decisions in the cases of: (i) Ashok Transport Agency vs. Awadhesh Kumar and Another , (1998) 5 SCC 567 (ii) Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Another vs. Pilla Durga Prasad and Others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1825 (iii) Shankar Finance and Investments vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others , (2008) 8 SCC 536 (iv) Shiv Narain Chaudhary vs. M/s. Naug and Company , AIR 1982 Allahabad 44 (v) Rohit Parushram and Others vs. Dhiraj Rawal and Others , MANU/AP/0656/2005 (vi) Raghu Lakshminarayanan vs. Fine Tubes , (2007) 5 SCC 103 (vii) Sawanraj Yadav vs. R. Gajanand Yadav , 2024 (6) ALD 158 (TS) (viii) M.B. Chander and Others vs. Balakrishna Rao Charitable Trust, Hyderabad , 2017 (3) ALD 68 (ix) Bharath Bhushan Sanghi vs. Manoj Kumar Soni , 2021 (5) ALD 353 (TS) (x) Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P and Another , (2007) 7 SCC 378 (xi) Bable alias Gurdeep Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh , (2012) 11 SCC 181 (xii) Gorika Sahdev vs. Honey Matta , 2023 ACJ 1430 (xiii) Rangineni Surya Prakash and Another vs. Dr. Susham Bela , 2024 (2) ALD 767 (TS) (xiv) Asha Rani Gupta vs. Vineet Kumar , (2023) 20 SCC 273 (xv) Firm Vijay Nipani Tobacco House vs. Sarwan Kumar and Others , AIR 1974 Patna 117 Prayed to set asidethe impugned order. 5. Learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. Respondent is not a tenant of the petitioner but it is the company. The Trial Court has rightly held that the company is not impleaded as a party in the suit, there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also came to a conclusion that maintainability of the suit can be dealt after framing of the issues. The order passed by the Trial Court is in proper prospective, does not require interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the CRP. 6. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material. 7. Now the point for consideration is: whether the order passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Malkagiri, in I.A.No.102 of 2023 in O.S.No.1002 of 2022, dated 18.08.2023 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court? 8. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K. Valarmathi and Others vs. Kumaresan , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985). 9. Petitioner has stated in the plaint in paragraph No.2 that the respondent – defendant, who is his brother-in-law, is running business in the name and style of M/s. Green Mint India Agree Tech Private Limited, situated at Habsiguda, Hyderabad and he let out the said suit schedule property to the defendant for the purpose of godown on a monthly rent of Rs.70,000/- on 01.06.2013 and the tenancy is oral. Further, the respondent- defendant has paid the rents for a period of six months, later he stopped paying the same. Further, the respondent- defendant has paid the rents for a period of six months, later he stopped paying the same. In the month of March 2017 petitioner- plaintiff approached the respondent-defendant along with his brother by name M.Srinivasa Rao, requested him to pay the rents and that on 17.03.2017 the respondent-defendant gave a false complaint against the petitioner and his brother. The petitioner- plaintiff on 11.01.2019 finally got issued notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, calling the respondent-defendant to vacate and hand over the suit premises by end of February 2019, failing which he is entitled to claim damages at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per month. It is also stated in paragraph No.6A of the plaint that respondent-defendant completely stopped the payment of rent since 01.04.2016 and that the defendant is liable to pay arrears of rent from 01.04.2016 till 31.03.2019 [36 months at the rate of Rs.70,000/-], which comes to Rs.25,20,000/-. 10. Respondent-defendant has filed his written statement denying the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant. 11. Petitioner has stated in the affidavit in I.A.No.102 of 2019 the same facts which are stated in the plaint, but claimed arrears of rent of Rs.55,30,000/- i.e., from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2019 for 36 months at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.25,20,000/- and from 01.04.2019 to 30.11.2022, for 43 months at the rate of Rs.70,000/-, which comes to Rs.30,10,000/-, totaling to Rs.55,30,000/-. 12. Respondent-defendant has filed counter in I.A.No.102 of 2023 and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and further contended that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 13. The learned Trial Court after going through the documents marked by the parties observed that the petitioner is not entitled for an order to direct the respondent to deposit arrears of monthly rents of Rs.55,30,000/- and the future rents at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month in the Court till disposal of the suit, as the petitioner failed to prove the existence of lesser and lessee relationship and also failed to prove the undisputed arrears of rent. 14. Petitioner has got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and the respondent has got marked Exs.R1 to R6 before the Trial Court. 14. Petitioner has got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and the respondent has got marked Exs.R1 to R6 before the Trial Court. 15.1 Ex.P1 is the letter dated 03.07.2017 got issued by the petitioner to the respondent stating that he has let out the suit schedule property to the respondent in the month of June 2013, wherein he was running a business in the name and style of M/s. Greenmint India Agritech (P) Limited and agreed to pay rent of Rs.70,000/- per month and the same is paid for a period of six months, thereafter defaulted in paying the rents and requested the respondent to vacate the premises. 15.2 Ex.P2 is another letter dated 12.12.2018 furnishing bank particulars of the petitioner to deposit entire rents due as well as future rents at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month. 15.3 Ex.P3 is the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, dated 11.01.2019 got issued by the petitioner’s counsel to the respondent, narrating the same facts as stated in Ex.P1 and called him to vacate the property within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice or by the end of February 2019 and pay entire due rents with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, further claiming damages or mesne profit at Rs.1,50,000/- per month for illegal occupation. 15.4 Ex.P6 is the information secured by the petitioner under the RTI Act from Southern Power Distribution Company of T.S. Limited dated 26.08.2021, to which a lease deed dated 17.08.2013 is enclosed. On perusal of the lease deed, which shows that the lessor is the petitioner and the lessee is M/s. Artpak Solutions, represented by its proprietor, Sri Murali Dora Bhuthanadhu and the rent is Rs.40,000/- per month and the property is plot Nos. 66 to 69 in block No.4, B.N. Reddy Nagar, Cherlapally, Hyderabad, the lease period is for a period of nine years commencing from the date of execution i.e., 17.08.2013. 16. It is the specific case of the petitioner-plaintiff that he let out the suit schedule premises to the respondent-defendant for running business in the name and style of M/s Green Mint India Agree Tech Private Limited, it was an oral tenancy on 01.06.2013 and the monthly rent was Rs.70,000/- per month, which is stated to be paid for a period of six months. Petitioner’s counsel during the course of arguments contended that the respondent may at least be directed to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month as per the lease deed dated 17.08.2013. 17. It is not the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that he entered into lease agreement with M/s. Artpak Solutions represented by its proprietor, that is respondent herein. 18.1 Ex.R1 is the complaint lodged by the petitioner before SHO, Chikadpally Police Station, Hyderabad on 22.07.2021. The complaint goes to show that respondent is his brother-in-law and he requested him to give plot admeasuring 1200/- sq.yds with shed at B.N.Reddy Nagar at Charlapally, Medchal - Malkajgiri District for establishing their business Agribio pesticides and accordingly, he leased out the premises in the year 2017 on monthly rental basis. 18.2 Ex.R2 is the FIR.No.285/2021, dated 27.07.2021, the complainant therein is the petitioner, accused No.1 is B.Naga Seshu, accused No.2 is B.Murali Dora [respondent herein], which is filed for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. 18.3 Ex.R3 is the 161 statement of the petitioner in Crime No.285/2021, in which he stated that he let out the premises to Agribiotech Pesticides for conducting business by the respondent and his brother by name Naga Seshu. 18.4 Ex.R4 is the certified copy of charge sheet in FIR.No.285/2021. 18.5 Ex.R5 is the certified copy of judgment in CC.No.622 of 2017, dated 11.11.2022, on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The accused shown thereon are D.Dodda VKAV Prasad Rao [petitioner herein], D.Srinivas Rao [A2], Shaik Muneeruddin [A3]. They admitted the charges under Sections 324 , 448 read with 34 of IPC and a lenient view is taken and they were sentenced to pay fine only. 19. In K. Valarmathi and Others vs. Kumaresan , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985 , the Supreme Court at paragraph No.8 held as under: “Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. 19. In K. Valarmathi and Others vs. Kumaresan , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985 , the Supreme Court at paragraph No.8 held as under: “Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner.” 20.1 In Ashok Transport Agency, the Supreme Court held that suit having been filed against a dead person, decree was a nullity and could not be executed. Proprietor having died, the proprietary concern was not in existence on the date of filing the suit and therefore, the suit could have been filed only against the legal representatives of the deceased proprietor. 20.2 In Dogiparthi Venkata Satish the Supreme Court held that the proprietorship concerned cannot be equated either with a company or with a partnership firm. 20.3 In Shankar Finance and Investments the Supreme Court held that where the payee is a proprietary concern, the complaint can be filed by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the ‘payee’ [which is dealt under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881]. 20.4 In Shiv Narain Chaudhary the Allahabad High Court held that wherein notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was served in a Company having a commercial name by which business was carried on by tenants and the tenancy was in the name of tenants as private persons and held that the framing of the suit is not defective. 20.5 In Rohit Parushram the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that merely because proprietary concern is not made an accused, proprietor who acts on its behalf is not entitled to seek relief [which is dealt for quashing of complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C]. 20.6 In Raghu Lakshminarayanan’s case Supreme Court held that a proprietary concern is only the business name in which the proprietor of the business carries on the business. A suit by or against a concern is by or against the proprietor of the business. 20.6 In Raghu Lakshminarayanan’s case Supreme Court held that a proprietary concern is only the business name in which the proprietor of the business carries on the business. A suit by or against a concern is by or against the proprietor of the business. Deposit of Rents: 21.1 In Sawanraj Yadav, this Court held that at the stage of deciding an application under Order XV(A) Rule 1 of CPC, it is not necessary for the Court below to search for clinching evidence. The prima facie tentative material to establish jural relationship is sufficient to invoke the provisions. 21.2 In M.B. Chander’s case, this Court held that when the quantum of rent is not disputed, trial Court is incompetent to decide arrears of admitted rent by undertaking summary enquiry to arrive at the rent due or payable on the date of filing the written statement and issue direction to deposit amount of arrears of rent due and to continue to deposit at same rate during pendency of the suit or proceedings before competent Court. 21.3 In Bharath Bhushan, this Court held that the tenant is estopped under Section 116 of Indian EVIDENCE ACT to question title of landlord, when there is a rental agreement. Regarding FIR and 161 statement: 22. In Rajendra Singh’s case Supreme Court held that the statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law. Bable alias Gurdeep Singh’s case is also with regard to 161 statements. Gorika Sahdev’s case is in respect of the FIR, which has set criminal law machinery into motion. Allegation that respondent made constructions: 23. In Rangineni Surya Prakash’s case High Court held that when there is a dispute with regard to quantum of arrears of rent, a finding in respect thereof has to be given after trial and modified the order of the lower Court by giving direction to pay the amounts, less than what was directed to be paid towards arrears of rent at the same time held that the tenant was under obligation to continue pay the rent in future. Denial of title: 24. Denial of title: 24. Asha Rani Gupta’s case Supreme Court held that denial of title of the plaintiff and denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, it can be held that such a denial simpliciter does not and cannot absolve the lessee/tenant to deposit the due amount of rent-damages for use and occupation. 25. In Firm Vijay Nipani Tobacco House’s case, Patna High Court held that when a suit is filed in the name of the firm as defendant, the name of the firm is merely an assumed collective name representing all partners in the case. 26. There is no dispute with regard to the propositions in respect of the FIR and 161 statement. The other decisions filed by the petitioner- plaintiff, do not come in the way to assist his case in deciding the application for deposit of arrears of rent. 27. The pleadings of the petitioner are inconsistent and they are changed as per the time goes on, which is stated supra. The Trial Court rightly observed that the petitioner failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent, and also arrived at a right conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for deposit of arrears of rent to a tune of Rs.55,30,000/- with future rents at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month. The reasoning of the Trial Court in paragraph No.6(h), (i), (u) does not warrant interference of this Court. The petitioner has not made out any grounds to set aside the impugned order and this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 28. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.