Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 987
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.
DVKAV Prasad Rao – Appellant
Versus
Bhuthanadhu Murali Dhora – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 3037 of 2023
Decided On : 13-10-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY
For the Respondent: B. RAMESH
The High Court will not interfere in lower court decisions unless clear jurisdictional errors or perverse reasoning are evident, underscoring the necessity of proving landlord-tenant relationships for rent claims.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XV(A) - Civil revision petition challenging a lower court's order regarding arrears of rent - Petitioner sought payment of arrears of Rs.55,30,000/- from the respondent, claiming landlord-tenant relationship - Trial Court concluded that the petitioner failed to prove such relationship and denied the application. (Paras 3, 13, 27)
(B) Supervisory powers - The High Court exercises supervisory powers under Article 227 to ensure that lower courts act within their jurisdiction and rectify jurisdictional errors or perverse decision-making. (Para 8)
(C) Jural relationship - The court emphasized the necessity of proving a landlord-tenant relationship for rent claims and noted that inconsistencies in pleadings weaken the petitioner's arguments. (Para 27)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner claimed that the respondent, who is his brother-in-law, was leasing property for business from June 2013 at a monthly rent of Rs.70,000/-, but the respondent denied the landlord-tenant relationship, asserting that he operated through a different company.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found that the petitioner did not substantiate his claims regarding the landlord-tenant relationship and ruled that the arrears claim of Rs.55,30,000/- was not valid.
Issues: The primary issues were whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed and if the application for deposit of arrears of rent should have been allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court reaffirmed that the proper exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit interference unless serious errors are evident, noting that the petitioner failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the civil revision petition and premise background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding jural relationship of landlord and tenant. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's review of the trial court's decision. (Para 6 , 7 , 13) |
| 4. legal standards for supervisory power under article 227. (Para 8 , 19) |
ORDER :
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed in I.A.No.102 of 2023 in O.S.No.1002 of 2022, by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Malkagiri, dated 18.08.2023.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant in the suit. Petitioner has filed I.A.No.102 of 2023 in O.S.No.1002 of 2022 under Order XV(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to direct the respondent - defendant to pay arrears of rent of Rs.55,30,000/- from 01.04.2016 to 30.11.2022 at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month and future rents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has requested the petitioner that he intended to start business in the name and style of M/s. Green Mint India Agree Tech Private Limited and requested to let out the suit schedule property viz., all that plot bearing No.66, 67, 68 and 69 in Survey No.229 to 246, admeasuring 1200 sq.yard, consisting of Godown and shed etc situated at B.N. Reddy Nagar, Charlapally, R.R. District, bounded by : North : Neighbours Plot; South : Road; East : Road; and West : Neighbours Plot. Accordingly, the suit schedule property is let out to the respondent on 01.06.2013 on monthly rent of Rs.70,000/- per month. Later on 17.08.2013, the revision petitioner has executed lease deed on the request of the respondent, which shows that the respondent is the proprietor of M/s. Artpak Solutions and there is no document to show that respondent is running business in the name and style of M/s. Green Mint India Agree Tech Private Limited. The Court below failed to see that Ex.P6 is the lease deed dated 17.08.2013, which is submitted by the respondent before the Southern Power Distribution Company of T.S. Limited, to obtain electricity connection to the suit schedule property. As per the lease deed dated 17.08.2013, the monthly rent is Rs.40,000/- and the Court below ought to have ordered to pay Rs.40,000/- at least in I.A.No.102 of 2023. The Trial Court failed to see that the respondent did not file any document to show that he is running M/s. Green Mint India Agree Tech Private Limited in the suit schedule property and wrongly came to a conclusion that the petitioner failed to implead the said company as defendant in the suit and the petitioner is not entitled for any rents at any stage.
4. Respondent is harping on Exs.R2 and R4 and the schedule property is let out in the year 2017 to the respondent, which ought to have been accepted. The Trial Court ought to have passed order basing on Ex.P6 – lease deed dated 17.08.2013. The respondent is enjoying the premises without paying any rent. Even in Ex.R1, it is mentioned that the schedule property is let out on lease in the year 2017 and that the petitioner has established by filing documents that the respondent is a tenant, in support of his contentions has relied on the decisions in the cases of:
(i) Ashok Transport Agency vs. Awadhesh Kumar and Another , (1998) 5 SCC 567
(ii) Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Another vs. Pilla Durga Prasad and Others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1825
(iii) Shankar Finance and Investments vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others , (2008) 8 SCC 536
(iv) Shiv Narain Chaudhary vs. M/s. Naug and Company , AIR 1982 Allahabad 44
(v) Rohit Parushram and Others vs. Dhiraj Rawal and Others , MANU/AP/0656/2005
(vi) Raghu Lakshminarayanan vs. Fine Tubes , (2007) 5 SCC 103
(vii) Sawanraj Yadav vs. R. Gajanand Yadav , 2024 (6) ALD 158 (TS)
(viii) M.B. Chander and Others vs. Balakrishna Rao Charitable Trust, Hyderabad , 2017 (3) ALD 68
(ix) Bharath Bhushan Sanghi vs. Manoj Kumar Soni , 2021 (5) ALD 353 (TS)
