The registered Addendum Lease Deed prevails over the unregistered MoU, and the trial Court's order on rent determination is upheld based on tenant admissions.

ORDER :

SUJOY PAUL, ACJ.

Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Tarun G.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Sarvani Desiraju, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 16.04.2024 in I.A.No.91 of 2021 in O.S.No.127 of 2021 passed by the learned XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the application preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs, who are the landlords, under Order XV-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), was allowed in part.

4. The contention of the petitioner/defendant, who is the tenant, is that as per the admitted facts, a registered lease deed was executed between the landlords and the erstwhile management of the tenant on 28.06.2014, wherein the rent was fixed as Rs.50,000/- per month. Thereafter, an unregistered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered into between the erstwhile management on 03.04.2016 fixing the rent of Rs.3,50,000/- per month. Thereafter, a registered Addendum Lease Deed was entered into between the present tenant/subsequent management and the landlords on 23.11.2017, whereby the rent was decided as Rs.50,000/- per month.

5. The two-fold submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/defendant are that i) In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.Santoshamma v. D.Sarala, [(2020) 19 SCC 80], a registered deed will prevail over an unregistered document. Since the Addendum Lease Deed, dated 23.11.2017, is a registered document, in view of Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908, this document must prevail; ii) the rent mentioned in the Addendum Lease Deed, dated 23.11.2017, i.e., Rs.50,000/- per month will bind the parties and not the Rs.3,00,000/- as decided by the Court.

6. Sounding a contra note, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that a plain reading of the language used in Order XV-A of CPC shows that the trial Court was competent to decide the quantum of rent on the basis of admission of parties or upon an enquiry. In the instant case, the petitioner/defendant, who is the tenant, itself admitted before the Court below that it was paying rent of Rs.3,00,000/- per month. The attention of this Court is drawn to paragraph Nos.4(d) and 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner/defendant before the Court below, which read thus:

“4(d). I submit that the erstwhile management of the Society (Respondent herein) had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Petitioners/Plaintiffs herein and had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- per month as rent for the Schedule Property but as per some mutual understanding, paid only an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- per month until 2017, when the present management of the Society (Respondent herein) took over and registered an Addendum Lease Deed with the Petitioners/Plaintiffs herein.

9. I submit that with respect to the contents in Para 4, the averment that though the amount of lease rent was mentioned to be Rs.50,000/- per month subject to an enhancement of 5% every 5 years, it was always agreed between the Parties, given the location of the Leased Premises and the vast extent of the premises, which included playground, etc., a monthly rent of Rs.3,50,000/- was initially agreed to be paid with 5% enhancement each year and the same was reflected in an MOU executed between the Petitioners and Respondents is incorrect and denied. I submit that the MOU executed for the said additional payment of rent has