Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1862 (TS)

P. Kishan Rao v. P. Vimala

2025-12-17

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff aggrieved by the order, dated 05.07.2019, in I.A.No.330 of 2018 in O.S.No.554 of 2018 passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order XV-A read with 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct the respondents-defendants to deposit the arrears of rent @ Rs.25,000/- per month for the period from October, 2012 to June, 2018 i.e. for a period of nine months, amounting to Rs.2,25,000/- and continue to deposit the future rents at the same rate till disposal of the suit, was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri M.A.K. Mukheed , learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkatesh Deshpande , learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the respondents-defendants from the suit schedule property i.e., H.No.1-1-261/15/G and 1-1-261/15/G1 consisting of ground plus pent house situated at Road No.1, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, and for arrears of rent and mesne profits. The petitioner is the absolute owner and landlord of aforesaid suit schedule property and the same was let-out to the respondents in the year 1987 on a monthly rent of Rs.25,000/-. It is stated that till September 2017, the respondents paid rent and from October, 2017 they have committed default in payment of rent. Therefore, the petitioner issued notice, dated 16.04.2018 under Section 106 of the Act, 1882 (for short, ‘the Act, 1882’) calling upon the respondents to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the suit schedule property within 30 days from the date of receipt of said notice. But, no reply was given to the said notice. Pending suit, the petitioner filed the aforesaid application seeking to pay the arrears of rent @ Rs.25,000/- per month. 4. But, no reply was given to the said notice. Pending suit, the petitioner filed the aforesaid application seeking to pay the arrears of rent @ Rs.25,000/- per month. 4. The respondents-defendants filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the application stating that on 14.08.1987, the petitioner has agreed to sell the front portion of the suit schedule property to an extent of 180 square yards for a consideration of Rs.3,25,000/- and on the same day his father P.Rajamouli paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as advance to the petitioner and as a consequence on 17.08.1987, an Agreement of Sale was entered by and between his father and the petitioner in respect of the said land. It is stated that as per the said Agreement his father has to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner on or before 30.09.1987 and on receipt of the said amount, the petitioner has to handover the vacant possession to the father of the respondents. The petitioner also sold rear side portion of 210 square yards to father of the respondents for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. After purchase of the same, the said P.Rajamouli became owner of entire suit schedule property. After death of Rajamouli on 25.03.2018, the respondents are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are tenants of the suit schedule property and hence, they are liable to pay rent, arrears of rent and future rents. 5. Considering the contentions and rival contentions of both parties and also the documents Exs.P.1 to P.5 and Exs.R.1 to R.16, the learned trial Court dismissed the application. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are tenants of the suit schedule property and hence, they are liable to pay rent, arrears of rent and future rents. 5. Considering the contentions and rival contentions of both parties and also the documents Exs.P.1 to P.5 and Exs.R.1 to R.16, the learned trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed contending that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that though the petitioner got issued notice to the respondents under Section 106 of the Act, 1882 demanding them to vacate the premises and to pay the monthly rent @ Rs.25,000/- with arrears of rent, there was no response to the said notice;the learned trial Court did not consider that there was a false plea set up by the respondents claiming that they are enjoying the property through Agreement of Sale executed by the petitioner; that even in case of Agreement of Sale taken to be genuine, the respondents would wait without taking any steps for registration of Sale Deed from 1987 onwards; that the learned trial Court did not consider that the petitioner being owner of the property; that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the Agreement of Sale, which is relied by the respondents is a fabricated document and the contents discloses that the father of the respondents allegedly entered into Agreement with the petitioner. 6. Admittedly, the application is filed under Order XV –A read with 151 of C.P.C. which is incorporated in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. For convenience, the same is re-produced as under: “(1) In a suit for recovery of possession, on termination of lease, or licence, with or without a prayer for recovery of arrears of rent, or licence fee, known with whatever description, the defendant, while filing his written statement, shall deposit the amount, representing the undisputed arrears, calculated upto that date into the Court and shall continue to deposit such amount, which becomes payable thereafter within one week from the date on which it becomes due, till the judgment is rendered in the suit. (2) Where the defendant pleads in the written statement that no arrears of rent or licence fee exists, it shall be competent for the Court to pass an order in this regard, after affording opportunity to both the parties, and in case any amount is found due, the defendant shall be under obligation to deposit the same, within the time stipulated by the Court and continue to deposit the amount which becomes payable thereafter, as provided under Rule 1. Provided that the time stipulated for payment of amount, as aforesaid, may be extended by the Court for reasons to be recorded for a period not exceeding 15 days. If the defendant commits default in making the deposits, as aforesaid, the Court shall strike off the defence. On such deposit it shall be competent for the plaintiff to withdraw the same. Explanation: The expression “the amount representing the undisputed arrears” shall the sum of rent, or licence fee, calculated for the period, for which it remained unpaid, after deducting from it, any amount. (a) Paid as tax, to a local authority, in respect of the property. (b) Paid to the plaintiff under written acknowledgment. (c) Deposited into the Court, in any proceedings, in relation to the said property.” 7. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner vehemently argued and contended that the respondents-defendants are only tenants of the suit schedule property and that Rajamouli, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 to 4, obtained said property on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- and accordingly, he paid an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to the petitioner on various dates with an understanding that the said amount shall be adjusted against the rent from September, 1989 to September, 2017 and on demand, the original sale deed, dated 21.11.1983 was handed over to Rajamouli. He further submits that, after September, 2017 the petitioner approached the respondents and requested them to pay rent @ Rs.25,000/- per month and return the original sale deed, for which they did not return sale deed and did not pay arrears of rent and thereby, they committed default in payment of rents. He further submits that the petitioner issued notice under Section 106 of the Act, 1882 on 16.04.2018 calling upon the respondents to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the subject premises. He further submits that the petitioner issued notice under Section 106 of the Act, 1882 on 16.04.2018 calling upon the respondents to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the subject premises. In support of his contentions, he also relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha Rani Gupta v. Vineet Kumar , Civil Appeal No. 4682 of 2022 wherein it was held thus: “In the context of the proposition of denial of title of the plaintiff and denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, we may also observe that such a denial simpliciter does not and cannot absolve the lessee/tenant to deposit the due amount of rent/damage for use and occupation, unless he could show having made such payment in a lawful and bonafide manner. Of course, the question of bonafide is a question of fact, to be determined in every case with reference to its facts but, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that by merely denying the title of plaintiff or relationship of landlord-tenant/lessor-lessee, a defendant or the suit of the present nature could enjoy the property during the pendency of the suit without depositing the amount of rent/damages.” 8. He further contended that merely on the ground that the petitioner-plaintiff entered into an Agreement of Sale with the respondents-defendants, the respondents cannot squat on the property without making any rent. He also further argued that mere denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondents, such denial simpliciter does not and cannot absolve the lessee/tenant to deposit the due amount of rent/damage for use and occupation. He further submits that the proposition laid down in the said judgment applies to the present facts of the case. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner agreed to sell the schedule property to the respondents and accordingly, the petitioner executed an Agreement of Sale in favour of the respondents and delivered possession of the same in favour of Rajamouli. He further submits that in terms of Agreement of Sale, dated 17.08.1987 the respondents are residing in the said property as its owners. He further submits that after death of Rajamouli, the respondents are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the entire suit schedule property as its owners. He further submits that in terms of Agreement of Sale, dated 17.08.1987 the respondents are residing in the said property as its owners. He further submits that after death of Rajamouli, the respondents are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the entire suit schedule property as its owners. The learned trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, righty dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interference with the same. 10. Admittedly, there is a denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents. Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (as applicable to suits arising under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882) comes into operation only when the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and there is also an admission with regard to the payment of rent. Where the respondents admit the tenancy and the quantum of rent, and thereafter fail to pay the arrears of such admitted rent, the petitioner may institute a suit for eviction. In such circumstances, the Court is bound to direct the respondents to deposit the arrears of admitted rent pending the suit and to continue to pay future rent at the admitted rate until disposal of the suit. 11. In the present case, though the respondents have admitted the petitioner’s ownership of the subject property, they have categorically denied the existence of a landlord– tenant relationship. They have also denied both the quantum of rent and the payment thereof. In the absence of any admission regarding the quantum of rent, and without first ascertaining such quantum, directing the respondents to deposit any amount under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is unsustainable. Even if the respondents are in possession whether lawful or otherwise without any evidence of admitted rent placed before the Court, the petitioner cannot invoke the provisions of Order XV-A in a case where there is no admission of rent. The provision contemplates that the rent or damages for use and occupation must first be ascertained, and only thereafter can a direction be issued to deposit the admitted rent or determined amount. In the absence of such ascertainment, this Court finds no error in the order passed by the learned Judge dismissing the application. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In the absence of such ascertainment, this Court finds no error in the order passed by the learned Judge dismissing the application. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Since the suit is of the year 2018, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously, as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournments. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.