Telangana High Court
Devender Kumar vs Shri. Santosh Kumar Agarwal on 14 August, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA:
HYDERABAD
***
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2644, 2657 & 2674 of 2025
Between:
Devendra Kumar.
Petitioner
VERSUS
Santosh Kumar Agarwal and Others.
Respondents
COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 14.08.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Page 2 of 9
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2644, 2657 & 2674 of 2025
% 14.08.2025
# Between:
Devendra Kumar.
Petitioner
VERSUS
Santosh Kumar Agarwal and Others.
Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.A. Achuthanand.
^Counsel for the respondent(s) :
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1)2009 SCC OnLine AP 556
Page 3 of 9
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2644, 2657 & 2674 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the
Civil Revision Petitions.
2. These are three Civil Revision Petitions in respect of the same cause of
action. Hence, these three Civil Revision Petitions are being decided by this
common order.
3. The challenge in these three Civil Revision Petitions is to the order dated
28.07.2025, passed by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. In Civil
Revision Petition No.2644 of 2025 the challenge is to the order passed in
I.A.No.99 of 2025 in R.C.No.27 of 2020. Likewise, in Civil Revision Petition
No.2657 of 2025, the challenge is to the order passed in I.A.No.97 of 2025 in
R.C.No.25 of 2020. Similarly, in Civil Revision Petition No.2674 of 2025 the
challenge is to the order passed in I.A.No.98 of 2025 in R.C.No.26 of 2020.
4. Vide the impugned order; the Court below dismissed the aforesaid three
I.As. filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') to direct the respondents to
lead evidence first and only after the respondents' evidence is over, the
petitioner be permitted to lead evidence.
5. The facts in nutshell leading to filing of the instant Civil Revision
Petitions are that the petitioner who claims himself to be the landlord of the
subject property had filed Rent Control cases seeking for eviction of the
respondents from the subject property on the ground of willful default in
payment of rents to the petitioner. When the matter reached the stage of
evidence, the petitioner filed these three I.As. in the pending Rent Control cases
mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since the
petitioner has filed the Rent Control cases on the ground of default on the part
of respondents in payment of rent, and the respondents having denied the
contention of the petitioner and have said that they had discharged their liability
of payment of rent, the burden to lead evidence falls upon the respondents
before the petitioner is directed to lead evidence. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner also was that once when the respondents have denied
the contention of they having defaulted in payment of rents, the burden of proof
stands automatically shifted upon the respondents to prove their case of having
not defaulted in payment of rents.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents are
required to enter appearance before the Court and show the proof of regular
payment of rent and the fact that there is no default. It was also the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the respondents are able to
discharge their burden by showing regular payment of rent and there being no
default, the entire case itself can be adjudicated on that basis and there may not
be a need for the petitioner to lead evidence at all.
8. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of
Pendyala Sudha Rani vs. Basava Janakiramayya and Others 1, wherein the
contents of paragraph No.9 have been stressed upon. For ready reference,
paragraph No.9 is reproduced hereunder, viz.,
"9. Once the tenancy is not disputed, and the landlord alleges that the tenant
committed default in payment of rent, the burden subsequently rests upon the
tenant, to prove the payment thereof. The reason is that the landlord cannot be
expected to prove a negative fact, stating that the rent was not paid. Proof, if,
at all, would exist for payment, and not for non-payment. Assuming that the
petitioner did not issue receipts, whenever rent was paid, the respondent could
have adduced other relevant evidence, to establish the manner in which, the
rent was paid. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by him, is
absolutely of no use.........."
2009 SCC OnLine AP 556
9. Having heard the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and on perusal of records, this Court would like to refer to the
provisions of Order XVIII Rule 1 of CPC, which again for ready reference is
reproduced hereunder, viz.,
HEARING OF THE SUIT AND EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
1. Right to begin.- The plaintiff has the right to begin unless the
defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in
point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant the plaintiff is
not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case the defendant
has the right to being.
A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would go to show that it is
always the plaintiff who has the right to begin evidence in a suit. Only in very
few circumstances would there be a requirement for the defendant to lead
evidence first, and that too stands envisaged in Order XVIII Rule 1. In terms of
Order XVIII Rule 1, the defendant can lead evidence only if he admits the facts
alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint and, in addition to the admitted facts, if the
defendant contends either on point of law or on some additional facts which the
defendant has alleged in his written statement alleging that the plaintiff is not
entitled for any part of the relief that he has sought for. In that case, the
defendant would be entitled to lead his evidence first.
10. The further facts which are reflected from reading of the aforesaid
provision is that, such a request seeking for defendant to lead evidence is again
to come forth from the defendant's side and not at the behest of the petitioner /
plaintiff. Moreover, perusal of the pleadings would go to show that the
respondents have denied the contentions of the petitioner, and in the said
circumstances as is otherwise mandated under Order XVIII Rule 1, it is the
responsibility of the petitioner to lead evidence first and substantiate their
contention. In the instant case, the evidence required to be brought forth by the
petitioner would be the petitioner being landlord of the subject property and the
respondents being the tenant of the petitioner and the petitioner establishing
jural relationship between him and the respondents so far as the relationship of a
landlord tenant is concerned.
11. For proving the aforesaid three basic ingredients in a Rent Control case,
particularly when the basic ground of eviction sought for is default in payment
of rent, it would always be the petitioner / plaintiff who should lead evidence
first and substantiate their contention establishing the aforesaid three basic
ingredients enabling them to succeed in a Rent Control case.
12. In the instant case, the denial on the part of the respondents is strictly a
defence that they have taken and since it is a defence that they have taken, to
prove the same it is not required for the respondents to lead evidence first.
Rather it is other way round. It is the responsibility of the petitioner to show that
they have been able to make out a strong case by leading evidence to prove the
aforesaid three ingredients required in a landlord tenant dispute. This in other
words also means that if the prayer of the petitioner is to be accepted, then it
would amount to the respondents being made to disclose their defence first and
thereafter the petitioner would get a chance to rebut the defence of the
respondents more effectively. Such a system is not what is envisaged either
under CPC or under any of the justice delivery system, both under civil
jurisdiction, so also under the criminal law jurisdiction. Of course Order XVIII
Rule 1 of CPC carves out certain exceptions, but those are substantially in
respect of certain additional facts contended by the defendant in his written
statement which would lead to establishing the fact that the plaintiff is not
entitled for the relief he seeks for through the suit. Such is not a case that the
petitioner has made out, nor is it the stand of the respondents.
13. In view of the same, this Court is of the firm view that the view taken by
the Court below while dismissing the three I.As. is proper, legal and justified
and does not warrant interference. The three Civil Revision Petitions thus fail,
and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 14.08.2025
Note: LR Copy to be marked.
B/o(GSD)
