IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.3691 of 2025 Date of Order : 28.11.2025 BETWEEN :

Mr.S. Venkateswara Reddy, S/o.Late S. Sanjeeva Reddy …Petitioner AND Mrs.K. Sirisha, W/o. Mr. K. Vijay, and another … Respondents

ORDER :

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 08.09.2025 in I.A.No.999 of 2025 in O.S.No.3280 of 2024 passed by the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the impugned order’).

2. Heard Mr. V. Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr.Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the above I.A. and directed the petitioner herein to pay arrears of rent to the respondents from July 2022 to the tune of Rs.7,92,000/-, i.e., (Rs.33,000/- x 2.4 months) within two months from the date of the order; and further directed the petitioner to pay future monthly rents of the schedule property on or before 5^th of every month till vacating the suit schedule property; and in default, the defence of petitioner would be struck off.

4. Assailing the same, the instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that the default of petitioner in payment of rent is totally incorrect since the petitioner had been paying the rents regularly in cash through the mediator who had got the premises let out to the petitioner from the landlord. However, on a query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted since the rents were being paid in cash to the respondents no receipt thereof were being given by the respondents to the petitioner; and that initially there used to be certain receipts issued by the respondents when rents were paid by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the petitioner had preferred an injunction suit, the respondents have stopped issuance of receipts and therefore they are not in a position to prove actual payment of rents to the respondents.

6. Be that as it may, considering the nature of contentions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner, prima facie, there seems to be no strong material available with the petitioner to substantiate its claim of having been paid monthly rents regularly to the respondents and also to show that there are no arrears of rent payable to the respondents as of now.

7. However, as an abundant caution, this Court is of the considered opinion, ends of justice would meet if arrears of rent as directed by the Trial Court is ordered to be deposited by the petitioner in the account of the Trial Court within a period of two (02) months starting from today. However, the said deposited rent would not be released to the respondent- landlord till finalisation of the proceedings. So far as future rents are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents undertakes that subject to the petitioner paying the rent and also future rents without fail, they are willing to issue receipt of rents to the petitioner.

8. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________

P. SAM KOSHY, J Date : 28.11.2025 Ndr