HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITON NO.1508 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri Habeeb Abubaka Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mirza Shah Nawaz Baig, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 09.03.2023 in I.A.No.6 of 2022 in O.S.No.4090 of 2021 passed by the VIII Junior Civil Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, whereby and where under the application filed under Order XV-A of CPC by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.4090 of 2021 for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, past and future mesne profits. Respondents entered appearance and filed the written statement. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an application vide I.A.No.6 of 2022 seeking direction to the respondents to pay/deposit accumulated arrears of rents for a sum of Rs.37,500/- for the months from 26.04.2021 to September, 2021 being deficit amount @ Rs.7,500/- per month as well as to continue to deposit the agreed monthly amount @ Rs.7,500/- per month as and when it falls due to the credit of the above suit.

5. The trial Court vide order dated 09.03.2023 dismissed the I.A.No.6 of 2022 with an observation that since there is dispute regarding the jural relationship and quantum of rents among the parties, the same cannot be decided at this stage under this petition and the same can only be decided after adducing evidence from both the parties. The trial Court further observed that as per the Order XV-A of CPC, the admitted rents can be deposited by the tenant in the Court, however, the respondents, are denying the jural relationship between the petitioner and respondents, therefore, the trial Court cannot insist the respondents to deposit the rents. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.03.2023, the present revision is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after purchase of the suit schedule property by the petitioner, she issued notice to the respondents, who are the tenants of the suit schedule property, to pay the rents from the date of its purchase, however, the respondents failed to pay the rents; that without considering the said fact, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application; that trial Court miserably failed to appreciate that the vendor of the petitioner has also issued letter to respondents informing that he sold the suit schedule property to the petitioner and informed them to pay the rent @ Rs.7,500/- p.m., to the petitioner since the tenancy of the respondents has been attorned in favour of the petitioner from the date of its purchase and finally, prayed to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order.

7. In support of the contention, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:

i) Asha Rani Gupta v. Sri Vineet Kumar1; and ii) A.P.Leela v. Nakkala Kishore Yadav

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents would submit that the trial Court, on due consideration of the fact that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between vendor of the petitioner and respondents as well as between the petitioner

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 607

2 2018 (4) ALD 392

and respondents and therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed and the petitioner failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order and finally, prayed to dismiss the revision.

9. Perusal of the record would disclose that petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.4090 of 2021 for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, past and future mesne profits. Pending adjudication of the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order XV-A of CPC with a direction to respondents to pay the arrears of rents alleging default in payment of rents b