Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 511 (TS)

Sunil Manghnani v. Salik Kutubuddin Khan

2025-04-30

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This is an appeal filed by the appellants – defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 21.01.2019 passed in O.S.No.417 of 2016 by the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”). 2. The parties are addressed herein as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the father of the plaintiff namely late Nawab Kutubuddin Khan was the landlord and owner of the property on first floor admeasuring 3000 square feet in the premises bearing Municipal No.5-9-30/26 to 30 and 30A, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad and the defendant No.1 is his tenant in 1500 Sq.feet. and defendant No.2 is the tenant in 600 Sq.feet, further the father of the plaintiff has let out 900 square feet to defendant No.3, that means defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the tenants of the father of the plaintiff. Following the death of his father, the plaintiff became the owner of the suit schedule property and he was taking rents from the defendants and that by virtue of the lease deeds dated 21.04.1986 and 04.06.1986 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3, he was entitled to 5% increase in the rent after every 11 months, but the defendants failed to pay the enhanced rent. The plaintiff has calculated the arrears of rents and the monthly rent of the said premises totally from defendant Nos.1 to 3 was Rs.7,000/- per month and then, after the expiry of 11 months 5% increase was to be made and thus, monthly rents payable by the defendants since 2015 is Rs.33,355/- and that the defendants failed to pay the monthly rent as per the enhanced rate. The plaintiff has requested several times to clear off the arrears of rent which got accumulated but the defendants failed to clear the same and thereby, the plaintiff issued notice for eviction and also for payment of arrears of rent. 4. The defendant No.1 has filed his written statement which is adopted by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 stating that the suit is not maintainable. They admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and them but they have denied the enhancement of rents and also the claim for arrears of rent. 4. The defendant No.1 has filed his written statement which is adopted by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 stating that the suit is not maintainable. They admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and them but they have denied the enhancement of rents and also the claim for arrears of rent. It is their case that they were paying the rents regularly and that there has been an oral agreement not to enhance the rent. They contended that they made some improvements in the suit schedule property and they completed the partly unfinished construction at the suit schedule premises and therefore, there was an oral agreement of not enhancing the rent and they denied the arrears of rents alleged by the plaintiff. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court has framed the following issues for trial. “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek eviction of defendants from the schedule property as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent and damages from defendants as prayed for? 3. To what relief?” 6. At the time of trial, PW1 was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the defendants, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B41 were marked. 7. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff granting the relief of eviction and also payment of arrears of rents, directing the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also to pay the arrears of rents. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the unsuccessful defendants have preferred the present appeal. 8. Heard the submissions of Smt.P.Bhavana Rao, learned counsel for the appellants. No representation on behalf of the respondent. 9. The learned appellants counsel has submitted that the defendants have already vacated the premises but the arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff is too harsh on them and that they are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. She further argued that the defendants have paid the rents without fail, every month and that they are not due to any extent and therefore, the decree of the trial Court with regard to the arrears of rent is not proper. She further argued that the defendants have paid the rents without fail, every month and that they are not due to any extent and therefore, the decree of the trial Court with regard to the arrears of rent is not proper. She argued that there was an oral agreement between the plaintiff and defendants not to enhance the rent and that the lease agreement was perpetual in nature and so the decision of the trial Court with regard to the enhanced rate of rent is without any basis and therefore, prayed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 10. Based on the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent from the defendants? 2. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable under law and in the facts? 3. To what relief? 11. POINT NO.1 a) It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff had three properties which are let out to defendant Nos.1 to 3 which are contiguous to each other for an area of 3000 square feet and after the death of his father, the plaintiff succeeded to the estate and the defendants were paying rents to the plaintiff and that initially PW1 was receiving monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- from the defendants and the rent was to be enhanced by 5% in every 11 months and the defendants have not enhanced the rent at that rate and they were at default from December, 2015 @ Rs.33,355/- per month. Further, PW1 contended that the defendants are liable to pay rent for the period of 10.04.2013 till 31.01.2014 @ Rs.28,813/- amounting to Rs.2,30,504/- but the defendants have paid only Rs.56,000/- and thus, they are liable to pay Rs.1,65,500/- and the rent for the period from 01.02.2014 till 31.12.2014 was payable @ Rs.30,254/- amounting to Rs.3,32,790/- but the defendants have paid a part amount of Rs.77,000/-, thus, the balance to be paid by the defendants is Rs.2,72,429/-. In the said fashion he calculated the arrears of rent till the date of suit and claimed that the defendants are liable to pay a total amount of Rs.7,98,637/- towards arrears of rent from 10.01.2013 till the date of suit. In the said fashion he calculated the arrears of rent till the date of suit and claimed that the defendants are liable to pay a total amount of Rs.7,98,637/- towards arrears of rent from 10.01.2013 till the date of suit. He filed a statement of account under Ex.A4 showing the calculation with regard to the arrears of rent. b) It is elicited during the cross examination of PW1 that he has not executed any fresh lease deed in favour of defendants with regard to the suit schedule property but that as per the lease deeds under Exs.A1 to A3, it is automatically renewed. c) A perusal of Exs.A1 to A3 discloses that initially the lease amount that was agreed upon with regard to the 1500 sft was Rs.3,500/- only and at page No.3 of the lease deed there is a clause as follows: “In case the parties agreed to the renewal of the lease, the lessee will be liable to pay the rent for the renewed period @ Rs.3,675/- per month”. The same clause is mentioned in every lease deed i.e. Exs.A2 and A3 also. In Ex.A3, it was agreed to increase the rent for the renewed lease period as Rs.1500/- per month while the initial rent was Rs.1400/-. Thus, there was a clause of enhancement of rent in all the lease deeds after the initial lease period of 11 months. Ex.A6 is the reply notice sent by the defendants. A perusal of the same reveals that the entire premises of 3000 sft was leased out to defendants on monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- with a caution deposit of Rs.42,000/-. Thus, it is elicited that the total premises of 3000 sft was given in lease to defendant Nos.1 to 3 @Rs.7,000/- per month. d) In the cross examination of DW1, he admitted the documents under Exs.A1 to A3 and he also admitted that monthly rent is exclusive of electricity charges, water cess and municipal tax and he further admitted that monthly rent is payable by 5th of every month and that as per the agreement, the monthly rents are to be increased by 5% in every 11 months but he added that orally they have agreed not to enhance the rent. DW2 has also admitted in his cross examination that as per the lease agreement there is a clause for enhancement of rent but has claimed that they have orally agreed not to enhance the rent and that the father of PW1 has accepted for the same. No evidence is adduced by the defendants to disprove the clause mentioned in Exs.A1 to A3 or to prove their contention that there was an oral agreement of not to enhance the rent. e) Instead the defendants have filed documents showing income tax declarations and statement of account of income, income tax assessment order and also the acknowledgment of their tax payment, the postal receipts and undertaking letters so on, but all these documents do not aid the defendants in proving their contention that they are not liable to pay any arrears of rent or that they have paid the rent at enhanced rate. It is a mere contention of the defendants that there was an oral agreement not to enhance the rent and that they are not liable to pay any arrears of rents, without any evidence. f) In the absence of any evidence placed on record, it is difficult to dislodge the clause mentioned in the lease deeds and thus, it is held that the defendants are liable to pay the enhanced rate of rents, as disclosed from Ex.A4 wherein the plaintiff has calculated the arrears of rent which is due by the defendants. g) DWs 1 and 2 have not specifically denied Ex.A4 and there is no material placed by the defendants to show that they paid any amount of the arrears as claimed under Ex.A4. If at all they have paid any amounts, they could have placed some evidence on record to prove their payments. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent as disclosed by Ex.A4. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 13. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point No.1, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court do not need any interference and the same are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 13. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point No.1, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court do not need any interference and the same are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree, dated 21.01.2019 passed in O.S.No.417 of 2016 by the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.