Siddharth Agarwal vs Habeeb Abdul Khader
2024 Latest Caselaw 771 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 771 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2024

Telangana High Court

Siddharth Agarwal vs Habeeb Abdul Khader on 23 February, 2024

              THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA


             CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.04 OF 2023

ORDER :

This revision petition is filed by the revision

petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 04.11.2022

passed in I.A.No.1815 of 2017 in O.S.No.896 of 2017 by the IX

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, wherein the

petitioner filed petition under Order XV-A r/w.Section 151 of Code

of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') praying the Court to direct the

respondent/defendant to pay monthly rents @ Rs.43,938/- per

month in respect of suit schedule property on or before 5th of each

calendar month till vacating the suit schedule property and

further to pay the arrears of rent from the month of March, 2007

to September 2017 totaling to Rs.33,72,870/- and future rents @

Rs.43,938/- per month .

2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is the owner of

suit schedule property. There are three mulgis in the schedule

property and there are three tenants. The respondent is in a

portion of the suit schedule mulgi, since 2004 and doing cell

phone business. The tenancy is oral between the respondent and

his previous owner on a monthly rent basis with initial monthly

rent @ Rs.14,000/- for a period of 11 months. There was no rental

agreement between the petitioner and respondent and the same

was continued orally. Therefore, he prayed the Court to direct the

respondent to pay monthly rent @ Rs.43,938/- on or before 5th of

every month till vacating the suit schedule property and also to

pay arrears of rent from March, 2007 to September 2017 totaling

to Rs.33,72,873/-.

3. The respondent denied the jural relationship of landlord and

tenant between the petitioner and himself. He is not aware of

petitioner and he came to know for the first time only after filing of

suit by the petitioner. His further contention is that when there is

no tenancy between himself and petitioner, the question of

enhancement of rent @ 10% for every 11 months does not arise. It

is also contended that respondent did not issue any cheque for

payment of security amount and petitioner is totally stranger to

him. The acknowledgment of legal notice is a forged one.

Therefore, prayed the Court below to dismiss the petition.

4. After hearing both sides, the Court below disposed of the

petition directing both the parties to cooperate in speedy disposal

of the case.

5. Heard Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the

petitioner and none appeared on behalf of the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit

that the revision petitioner is the owner of suit schedule property

and he purchased the same from earlier landlord of the

respondent. The petitioner issued notice under Section 106 of the

Transfer of Property Act to the respondent and even though he

received notice, neither the respondent vacated the suit schedule

property nor paid the rents. Therefore, prayed the Court to set

aside the order of the Court below by directing the respondent to

pay arrears and also the monthly rent.

7. None appeared on behalf of the respondent even though

notice is received.

8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and the material placed on record, the

Court below disposed of the petition observing that the respondent

denied jural relationship itself. As seen from the counter of

respondent before the Court below, he denied the relationship of

landlord and tenant between them and no mention was made in

what position he is in the suit schedule property. The counter of

the respondent is of total denial and he has also denied that he is

not the tenant of the suit schedule property. Therefore, there is no

information either in the petition or in the counter to prove the

tenancy as an oral tenancy. Further, the petitioner herein relied on

the judgment of this Court in Bharath Bhushan Sanghi Vs Manoj

Kumar Soni 1, wherein, in paras 14 & 17 it was held as under :

"14. In view of the fact that there is a rental agreement, the respondent/tenant is estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act to question the title of the petitioner/landlord. It is immaterial, who is paying rent on behalf of the tenant. As pointed out above, excepting vague denial in the written statement nothing is stated in what status/capacity the respondent is occupying the suit schedule property. While asserting that the petitioner does not have title to the suit property, the respondent has not made any counter-claim that he is the owner of the suit property. The provision under Order XV-A CPC is inserted by way of amendment of A.P. High Court in the year 2005 in order to protect the interests of the landlord during the pendency of the suit. The tenant, who occupies premises on lease, cannot be allowed to enjoy the property without payment of rents on the pretext of making frivolous and vague allegations and disputing the ownership of the landlord.

17. This Court, prima-facie, is of the view that the petitioner is owner of the subject property and the respondent cannot be permitted to continue in the premises without paying rents. The finding of the Court below that the jural relationship of the parties has to be decided in the main suit and not at the preliminary stage, in view of the fact that the respondent has questioned the rental agreement dated 24.10.2011, is erroneous and unsustainable. It is needless to point out that the tenant, who is bound to pay the monthly rent, cannot be given leverage to enjoy the property without paying rent. The order under challenge is set aside."

9. In the above judgment, there is rental agreement, whereas in

the present case tenancy is oral and no document is filed to prove

payment of rent or the quantum of rent.

2021 (5) ALD 353,

10. The revision petitioner also relied on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha Rani Gupta Vs Sri Vineet

Kumar 2. In the said judgment, there are rental receipts, but in

the present case, there is no such document to prove the quantum

of rent. The object of Order XV- A is to see that tenant cannot

enjoy the property without paying any amount. During the course

of trial, the Court has to direct the tenant to pay admitted rent

whereas, in the present case there is no such material to decide