Telangana High Court
Mr Ujwal Agarwal vs Vikram Belum on 1 July, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3970 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated
12.11.2024, passed by the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, in L.A.No.561 of 2024 in OS.No.224 of 2024, whereby
and whereunder the application filed by the respondent herein under
Order 15-A CPC was allowed.
2. Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, and Sri Srinivas Chitturu, learned counsel for the
respondent. Perused the entire material available on record.
3. Brief factual matrix of the case is that respondent filed suit in
O.S.No.224 of 2024 against the revision petitioner for eviction and
delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property; for
payment of arrears of rent and maintenance charges, and also mesne
profits @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The revision petitioner entered
appearance and filed his written statement. During the pendency of
the suit, the respondent filed an application under Order 15-A CPC
vide IA.No.561 of 2024 to direct the revision petitioner to deposit
arrears of rent and maintenance aggregating to Rs.10,12,655/- and
to continue to deposit rent for every succeeding month. The revision
LNA, J
petitioner filed counter and resisted the said application. The trial
Court vide impugned order dated 12.11.2024 allowed the said
application and directed the revision petitioner to pay arrears of rent
to the respondent herein from September, 2023 till July, 2024 @
Rs.84,000/- per month amounting to Rs.9,24,000/- and maintenance
charges amounting to Rs.88.655/-, total amounting to
Rs.10,12,655/- within three (3) months from the date of this order.
The respondent was further directed to pay rent @ Rs.84,000/- per
month and maintenance charges @ Rs.8,000/-per month from
August, 2024 till November, 2024 i.e., (Rs.84,000/- x 4=
Rs.3,36,000/- + Rs.8,000/- x 4=Rs.32,000/-), total amounting to
Rs.3,68,000/- within three (3) months. The revision petitioner was
further directed to pay subsequent rent @ Rs.84,000/- per month
and maintenance charges @ Rs.8,000/- per month on or before 5th
of every succeeding month till the disposal of the main suit. In
default of any of these conditions, the defence of the revision
petitioner shall be struck off. Aggrieved by the said order, the
present Revision Petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the
impugned order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and is
LNA, J
untenable as there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant
between the respondent and the revision petitioner. He further
submitted that the revision petitioner has specifically denied that he
is a tenant and in fact, the revision petitioner has entered into sale
agreement with the respondent and paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to
him, but, the respondent did not come forward to execute registered
sale deed in his favour, and despite the said specific contentions
raised by the revision petitioner, the trial Court has allowed the
application on erroneous observations. Learned counsel further
submitted that the decisions relied upon by the revision petitioner
are not properly appreciated by the trial Court and in the absence of
any material to show that the revision petitioner is occupying the
premises as tenant, the trial Court committed error in allowing the
application. He further submitted that that the core issue whether
the revision petitioner is a tenant or an agreement holder can be
decided only after full-fledged trial, therefore, the trial Court ought
not to have ordered the application on assumption that the revision
petitioner is a tenant, without there being any material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner specifically relied
upon the reply notice dated 04.01.2024 issued on behalf of the
LNA, J
revision petitioner, wherein a specific stand has been taken that
there is no jural relationship of tenant and landlord between the
revision petitioner and the respondent and thus, prayed to allow the
Revision Petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the trial Court has rightly allowed the application basing on the
contentions raised by the respective parties and the material placed
on record and that, there is no irregularity or illegality in the
impugned order that warrants interference by this Court. Learned
counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to para 3 of the reply
notice dated 04.01.2024 which was got issued by the revision
petitioner in response to the notice dated 22.12.2023 got issued on
behalf of the respondent, wherein it is specifically admitted by the
revision petitioner that the earlier tenancy between the parties will
come to an end as the respondent received substantial amount to sell
the said plot and therefore, the revision petitioner need not pay rents
to the respondent from September, 2023. Learned counsel further
submitted that though the revision petitioner has taken a stand that
he is occupying the suit premises as purchaser and that he has paid a
sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to the respondent, no material is placed on
LNA, J
record in proof of payment of the alleged amount of Rs.35,00,000/-
He further submitted that in view of the specific admission in the
reply notice dated 04.01.2024 at para-3 that earlier tenancy between
the parties comes to an end clearly show the jural relationship of
revision petitioner and respondent as that of tenant and landlord and
therefore, the contention of the respondent that there is no jural
relationship of landlord and tenant is baseless and the revision
petitioner failed to place any evidence in support of his contention
that he is a purchaser of the suit plot and. By contending thus, he
prayed to dismiss the Revision.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Sawanraj Yadav Vs. R.Gajanand 1,
wherein a learned single Judge of this Court held that an application
filed under Order 15-A CPC cannot be questioned by the tenant on
the ground that there exists a serious dispute about the relationship
of landlord and tenant and further held that prima facie tentative
material to establish the jural relationship is sufficient to invoke
Order XV-A Rule 1 CPC.
8. In the above case, the revision petitioner therein/plaintiff filed
a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears and damages against the
2021(6) ALD 158 (TS)
LNA, J
respondent therein/defendant and an application seeking direction to
the defendant to pay arrears and future rents was allowed by the
trial Court by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Asha Rani Gupta Vs. Vineet Kumar 2 and Mohd. Raza and
another Vs. Geeta a Geeta Devi 3
9. In Asha Rani Gupta's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that denial of title of the plaintiff and denial of
relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and
defendant does not and cannot absolve the lessee/tenant to deposit
the due amount of rent/damages for use and occupation of the suit
premises, unless he could show having made such payment in a
lawful and bona fide manner.
10. In Mohd. Raza's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that even if a suit for specific performance is filed against the
plaintiff, the defendant continues to be tenant till passing of decree
of specific performance in his favour.
11. In the case on hand, undisputably, the revision petitioner is in
occupation of the suit plot and though he contended that he is
2022 (4) ALD 249 (SC)
2021(6) ALD 99 (SC)
LNA, J
occupation as a purchaser, no material is placed on record in proof
of entering into agreement of sale and payment of the alleged
amount of Rs.35,00,000/- and the only submission that is made on
behalf of the revision petitioner is that these issues are to be decided
after full-fledged trial, wherein the revision petitioner can place
material to substantiate his contention that he is a purchaser of the
suit plot. In the absence of such material, the stand of the
respondent that he is a purchaser of the suit plot and that he paid a
sum of Rs.35,00,000/- as part of sale consideration to the
respondent cannot be believed at this stage.
12. Furthermore, it is relevant to note that in reply notice dated
04.01.2024 got issued by the revision petitioner, at para-3 thereof it
is stated as "it was specifically and mutually agreed in presence of
witnesses that the earlier tenancy between the parties will come to
an end". This averment goes to the root of the issue in deciding the
jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and
the revision petitioner. In other words, it is clear that the respondent
LNA, J
has admitted that there was jural relationship of tenant and landlord
between him and the respondent.
13. In the above scenario and further, in view of submission of
learned counsel for respondent that the revision petitioner has not
filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale alleged to
have been entered between him and the respondent, the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asha Rani Gupta's case (cited
supra) and Mohd. Raza's case (cited supra) is squarely applicable to
the present case, and accordingly, it is held that even if there is a
dispute with regard to jural relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties, the tenant shall continue to pay the rents to the
landlord till such dispute is adjudicated.
14. For the foregoing reasons and the legal position, in considered
opinion of this Court the trial Court has rightly allowed the
application and this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity
in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence,
the Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:01.07.2025
dr
