Rangineni Surya Prakash vs Dr.Susham Bela
2023 Latest Caselaw 3390 Tel

                             1
                                                        CRP_2490_2023
                                                                 SN,J




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

                 C.R.P.NO.2490 OF 2023

Between:

Rangineni Surya Prakash and another
                                               ... Petitioners
And

Dr Susham Bela
                                               ... Respondent

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:            30.10.2023


      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers   :    Yes
   may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?       :    Yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
   see the fair copy of the Judgment?      :    Yes


                                      _________________
                                      SUREPALLI NANDA, J
                               2
                                                           CRP_2490_2023
                                                                    SN,J




      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                   C.R.P.NO.2490 OF 2023

%     30.10.2023


Between:

#   Rangineni Surya Prakash and another
                                               ..... Petitioners

And

$ Dr Susham Bela
                                                ... Respondent

< Gist:

> Head Note:


! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mrs Vedula Chitralekha
^ counsel for Respondent : Mr V.Rohith


? Cases Referred:
                                3
                                                              CRP_2490_2023
                                                                       SN,J




       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                   C.R.P.NO.2490 OF 2023
ORDER:

Heard Mrs Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr V.Rohith,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent.

2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is filed challenging the legality and

propriety of the order dated 11.11.2022 in I.A.No.274 of 2021

in O.S.No.33 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,

at Adilabad whereunder the petition filed by the

respondent/defendant under Order XV-A Rule 1 of C.P.C. was

partly allowed.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION.

DISCUSSION:

3. The petitioners in the present civil revision petition are

the plaintiffs in O.S.No.33 of 2021 on the file of Principal

Junior Civil Judge, at Adilabad which is a suit filed under

Section 26 and Orders IV and VII C.P.C for declaration of title

and perpetual injunction in respect of plaint schedule land and

in the said suit I.A.No.275 of 2021 had been filed by the

CRP_2490_2023 SN,J

respondent herein under Order XV-A Rule 1 of C.P.C. praying

the Court to direct the 1st petitioner herein to deposit

Rs.1,05,000/- in the Court and shall continue to deposit

Rs.15,000/- every month thereafter within a week from 5th

day of every month until further order or till the judgment is

rendered or to pass any other order the Court may deem fit

and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The plea of the respondent herein/defendant is that she

let out the suit plot to the 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff for a period

of three years from 01.11.2016 to 31.10.2019, under

registered lease deed dated 01.11.2016 and ever since he

deposited the monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- vide the last slip

dated 26.02.2021 and that as per the terms of the lease deed,

the 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff after expiry of the lease period of

three years, has to deliver vacant position of the suit plot to

her and in default thereof he has to pay Rs.500/- per day

towards damages.

5. According to the respondent herein in the present C.R.P,

the 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff deposited the rent at the rate of

Rs.6,000/- per month for the lease period from 01.11.2016 to

31.10.2019 to the credit of her account bearing

CRP_2490_2023 SN,J

No.20082837023 of Bank of Maharashtra, Adilabad and

thereafter, deposited the rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per

month from November, 2019 to February, 2021 to the credit of

the same account. She alleged that the 1st petitioner/1st

plaintiff willfully committed default in payment of rent for the

months of March and April, 2021 and falsely filed the suit

along with his son (2nd petitioner/2nd plaintiff) falsely claiming

that she had agreed to sell the plot and so the 2nd

petitioner/2nd plaintiff who is his son contended that they are

entitled for relief of declaration of title and injunction.

6. The petitioners herein filed counter asserting that the

suit is filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and

until and unless the issue with regard to title is decided the

petition cannot be entertained.

7. The respondent herein got marked five documents on

her behalf and the revision petitioners/plaintiffs marked four

documents on their behalf. The learned trial Court after

considering the material on record partly allowed the petition

by directing the 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff to deposit rent of

Rs.15,000/- per month into Court on 5th of every month till

the disposal of the suit and to deposit the arrears of rent at

CRP_2490_2023 SN,J

the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month for the period from

04.10.2021 to the date of the order i.e. 11.11.2022 within

three months.

8. Aggrieved by the said order dated 11.11.2022 passed in

I.No.275 of 2021 in O.S.No.33 of 2021 by the Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Adilabad, the present civil revision petition is filed.

CONCLUSION:

9. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent

herein is the owner of the suit schedule property. In the

counter filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs the fact that

the respondent/defendant leased out the suit property under

Ex.P.1, registered lease deed, dated 01.11.2006, to the 1st

petitioner/1st plaintiff for a period of three years is not

disputed.

10. A perusal of Ex.P.1 would show that after the expiry of

the lease period of three years, the lessee (1st petitioner/1st

plaintiff) shall deliver vacant possession of the property to the

lessor (defendant) and in default thereof the lessee shall be

liable to pay Rs.500/- per day or prevailing rent in the vicinity

whichever is higher, towards damages for unauthorized use

and occupation of the plot.

CRP_2490_2023 SN,J

11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner placed reliance on the judgment dated 15.06.2011

passed in Civil Revision Petition No.2087 of 2011, decided on

15.06.2011 in K.Zakira Shaik v K.Saleem Basha, but in the

present case the facts are distinguishable as under.

12. In the case referred to above the landlord sought for a

direction for deposit of arrears of rent covering various periods

by invoking the provision under Order XV-A Rule 1 CPC. The

stand taken by the tenant is that he constructed the 1st floor

of the premises with his own funds and account thereof is yet

to be settled and therefore, direction for deposit of arrears of

rent could not be given. Without considering the defence

taken, the trial Court gave direction for deposit of arrears of

rent. The tenant carried the matter in revision. The High

Court vide its order dated 15.06.2011 passed in C.R.P.No.2087

of 2011 between K.Zakria Shaik v K.Saleem Basha held that

where there is dispute with regard to quantum of arrears of

rent, a finding in respect thereof has to be given after trial.

That is the reason why the Court held that the dispute in

respect of the expenditure incurred by the tenant for

construction of 1st floor should be resolved after conclusion of

CRP_2490_2023 SN,J

trial and accordingly, Court had modified the order of the

lower Court by giving direction to pay amounts, less than what

was directed to be paid towards arrears of rent and at the

same time held that the tenant was under obligation to

continue to pay the rent in future.

13. In the present case, it is pertinent to mention here that

the respondent herein in the C.R.P./defendant sought for a

direction against the 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff to deposit the

arrears of rent of Rs.1,05,000/- for the period from March,

2021 to September, 2021 at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per

month, but the lower Court did not grant the said direction

against the 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff by giving the reason that

the said claim mesne profits has to be decided after full

fledged enquiry. Therefore, this Court opines that order dated

15.06.2011 passed in C.R.P.No.2087 of 2011 between

K.Zakria Shaik v K.Saleem Basha of the High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad does not apply to the facts of the present

case.

14. The lease period of three years expired by 31.10.2019

and admittedly till now the 1st petitioner herein/1st plaintiff has

not delivered vacant possession of the plot to the

CRP_2490_2023 SN,J

respondent/defendant and so the respondent

herein/defendant being a lessor is entitled to claim rent at the

rate of Rs.15,000/- per month towards rent. So the lower

Court rightly directed the 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff to deposit

the future rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month and the

arrears of rent from the date of filing of the petition till the

date of the order within three months.

15. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated

11.11.2022 in I.A.No.274 of 2021 in O.S.No.33 of 2021 on the

file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Adilabad shows that the

lower Court has not committed any illegality in passing the

impugned order and hence, the civil revision petition is

dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

___________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 30.10.2023 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked.

b/o kvrm