Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1819 (TS)

Kuldeep Soni v. V. Satyanarayana

2025-12-15

RENUKA YARA

body2025
ORDER : RENUKA YARA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Abdul Quadeer, learned counsel for 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 08.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.543 of 2024 in O.S.No.259 of 2024 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 an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- towards arrears of rent from 03.01.2023 to 04.06.2024, Rs.18,672/- towards arrears of property tax, Rs.57,163/- towards arrears of electric charges, Rs.5,912 towards arrears of water charges, totally Rs.17,81,827/- on or before 10.12.2024 and to pay the monthly rent at Rs.1,00,000 per month on or before 10th of every succeeding month. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed suit for eviction and recovery of possession coupled with recovery of arrears and mesne profits against the revision petitioners/defendants with respect to suit schedule property consisting of building bearing Door No.16-2-751/3 and 16-2-751/3/1, consisting of ground and first floor (built up area 2,104 Sq.Ft.) on Plot No.A-12, admeasuring 300 Sq.Yds., situated at SBH Colony, Saidabad Main Road, Saidabad, Hyderabad. There was a lease deed executed between the parties on 03.08.2020 for lease of the suit schedule property for monthly rent of Rs.60,000/- for a period of two (2) years and monthly rent of Rs.1,00,000/- after two (2) years from 03.08.2022 onwards. The revision petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/- as advance towards the premises and the same was refundable. The lease deed is 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 not qualified doctors. Due to the acts of the revision petitioners, complaint was lodged before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and the police registered a criminal case in FIR No.358 of 2023 dated 03.10.2023 against the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 415, 420, 425, 304-A and 506 of IPC. Due to the acts of the revision petitioners, complaint was lodged before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and the police registered a criminal case in FIR No.358 of 2023 dated 03.10.2023 against the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 415, 420, 425, 304-A and 506 of IPC. Thereafter, due to irregular payments of rents, the respondents got termination notice dated 09.03.2024 issued demanding the revision petitioners to pay arrears of rent of Rs.14,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages and mesne profits. Said notice was got returned by the revision petitioners. In the circumstances, suit for eviction was filed. 4. Upon receiving summons in the suit, the revision petitioners have filed written statement denying executing the 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.8,00,000/- at the time of oral lease. The unregistered lease agreement is a fabricated document created for the purpose of the case. The respondents requested the revision petitioners to whitewash and to carry out the repairs and the same resulted in expenses of Rs.5,00,000/- for the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners 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 17.02.2023 for Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively drawn on ICICI Bank, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. But said amount was not paid towards arrears of rent but for security purpose. In addition to the cheques that are referred by the revision petitioners, there are some more blank cheques in the possession of respondents which were taken at the time of taking the suit schedule property on rent. Only when there was demand from the respondents for enhancement of rent 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, arrears of electricity charges, water charges, and property tax, totaling to Rs.17,81,827/-. According to revision petitioners, it is clear that there is no cause of action for filing this case. The revision petitioners denied issuance of termination of notice and being liable to pay arrears of rent, arrears of electricity charges, water charges, and property tax, totaling to Rs.17,81,827/-. According to revision petitioners, it is clear that there is no cause of action for filing this case. When the matter was coming up for trial, the present petition is filed seeking payment 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 Prakash Chopra and others [ 2008 (5) ALT 112 (S.B) , allowed the petition directing the revision petitioners herein to pay arrears of rent and arrears of electricity charges, water charges and property tax. Aggrieved by the same, 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 the disagreement about the quantum of rent paid. The quantum of rent at Rs.1,00,000/- per month is disputed and the said issue has to be decided during trial. The Trial Court entertained the petition under Order XV-A of CPC directing the revision petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.17,81,827/- 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, the 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 that there is no evidence about payment of rent of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Further, the revision petitioners pleaded that they are 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. In spite of lack of documentary evidence, the trial Court has ordered payment of monthly rent of Rs.1,00,000/- by failing to see that the same is a triable issue to be decided after full- fledged trial. In spite of lack of documentary evidence, the trial Court has ordered payment of monthly rent of Rs.1,00,000/- by failing to see that the same is a triable issue to be decided after full- fledged trial. In view of the foregoing, it is pleaded that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. During arguments, the learned counsel for revision petitioners reiterated the stand 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 for 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 the Trial Court ought to have directed payment of Rs.15,000/- per month rent but not Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by the respondent that too without proof. It is emphasized that the respondents failed to produce any credible evidence about payment of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.1,00,000/- 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.1,20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively vide cheques dated 15.02.2023 and 17.02.2023, but claimed said amount to 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 liable to be set aside. 8. 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.1,00,000/- per month from 03.08.2022 onwards. As per said lease agreement, an amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid as advance to the premises. The premises was agreed to be utilized for the purpose of running the clinic. As per said lease agreement, an amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid as advance to the premises. The premises was agreed to be utilized for the purpose of running the clinic. It is argued that the suit schedule 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 premises, that too in part of the premises is unsustainable. It is the case of learned counsel for respondents that the revision petitioners are utilising the entire building including parking space inside the building and such a premises of two floors and parking area on the main road of Saidabad can never be let out for paltry amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. 9. 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 of Chaitanya Lanka and another v. Suresh Kumar Gupta and others , 2014 (5) ALD 744 , wherein, it is held that for the purpose of ascertaining the payment of admitted rents in a petition under Order XV-A of CPC, firstly 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 controversy as to existence of arrears is serious, then the same must be dealt at the trial in the suit. It is further emphasized that the word ‘undisputed’ 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 decide the same by duly 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.5,00,000/- for repairs and whitewashing of the building, 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 was their beneficial use of the premises. 10. With respect to the contention of revision petitioners that they have invested Rs.5,00,000/- for repairs and whitewashing of the building, 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 was their beneficial use of the premises. Further, reliance is placed upon judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in the case of Bharat Bhushan Sanghi v. Manoj Kumar Soni , 2021 (5) ALD 353 (TS) , wherein, it is held that a court conducting enquiry in a petition under Order XV-A of CPC has limited jurisdiction. The enquiry is summary in nature. It is mandatory for the tenant while filing written statement to deposit arrears of rent and to continue to deposit the rents. Such deposit of rents has to be made by the tenant even if the landlord has not sought relief 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 and the court is empowered to 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 quantum of rent. It is argued that deliberately the revision petitioners are claiming to have paid paltry amount of Rs.15,000/- 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.60,000/- 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 15.02.2023 and 17.02.2023 were issued for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively drawn on ICICI Bank, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. It is argued that the revision petitioners are unscrupulous people, who without being qualified doctors are running a clinic causing health hazard to a number of people. When the respondents insisted for payment of arrears, the cheques dated 15.02.2023 and 17.02.2023 were issued for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively drawn on ICICI Bank, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. It is argued that the revision petitioners are unscrupulous people, who without being qualified doctors are running a clinic causing health hazard to a number of people. In addition, they are collecting amounts as hand loans, promising to pay them by misusing their position as impostor doctors. 12. When the rival contentions are considered, it is seen that undisputedly the respondents are the landlords and the petitioners are the tenants. There is also no dispute about the revision petitioners entering the suit premises as tenants in the year 2020. The only dispute is with respect to quantum of rents and commission of default in payment of rents. It is seen that according to the respondents, the default in payment of rents occurred from 01.01.2023 onwards. Then the inference to be drawn is that there was no default in payment of rents for a period of two (2) years. 13. The location of the suit schedule property on the main road of Saidabad is not disputed. Further, the suit schedule property having two floors is not disputed. According to the revision petitioners, they are only in occupation of portion of the property, whereas, according to the respondents, the revision petitioners are in occupation of the entire building including the parking spaces. 14. The learned counsel for respondents argued that until it is proven that the lease agreement dated 03.08.2020 is a fabricated document, 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 monthly rent of Rs.60,000/-. It is argued that even in case there is any issue to be proven during trial about payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards rent and prevailing rents in the area, the admitted rents have to be taken at Rs.60,000/- per month. 15. In view of the fact situation, it is not possible to believe that a premises located on the main road of Saidabad was leased out for an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month rent. 15. In view of the fact situation, it is not possible to believe that a premises located on the main road of Saidabad was leased out for an amount of Rs.15,000/- 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.1,00,000/-, the onus of proof would be on the revision petitioners to prove that the monthly rent is Rs.15,000/- as claimed by them. 16. Coming to the aspect of the bounced cheques dated 15.02.2023 and 17.02.2023, 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 instituted. The termination notice was 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 agreement claiming it to be fabricated at this stage can be a self-serving version. Therefore, until contra is proven, the lease agreement dated 03.08.2020 which contains the signatures of the revision petitioners can be taken into consideration. Thus, taking the initial rent of Rs.60,000/- per month as argued by the learned counsel for respondents, the revision petitioners can be directed to pay arrears for said amount. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is to be modified. 17. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is disposed of modifying the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.543 of 2024 in O.S.No.259 of 2024 on the file 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 03.01.2023 onwards at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per month instead of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Except the said modification, the remaining findings in the impugned order shall remain unaltered. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.