THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.628 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard B. Dhananjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.

Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 09.08.2023 in I.A.No.1535 of 2022 in O.S.No.62 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (‘trial Court’), wherein a petition filed under Order XV-A of C.P.C. for depositing of arrears of rent of Rs.28,05,285/- and to continue to deposit monthly rent from December, 2021 onwards at Rs.71,922/- per month till the disposal of the suit, was dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed suit vide O.S.No.62 of 2022 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the respondent herein with respect to premises bearing shop No.2, (part) in Ground Floor, in Block B, with built up area of 1800 Sq.feet, (out of Total area of extent 2725 Sq.Feet) including common areas with undivided share of land admeasuring 50 Sq.Yards (out of 2113.38 Sq.Yards), in plot No.117 and 118 in Survey No.193 of ‘Kalyan’s Mahi Om Complex’ situated at Sri Devi Kalyan Estates in Yapral Village, under Alwal GHMC Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. There was a lease deed for a period of 11 months executed in the year 2012 for payment of rent of Rs.25,000/- per month with enhancement of rent at 10% per annum. The said premises was used for running a beauty care establishment in the name of ‘V CARE BEARUTY & SPA’ by the respondent. The suit is filed in the year 2021 alleging that the respondent is not paying rents when the rental value in the area is about Rs.80,000/- per month. In that regard, after perusing the entire record and hearing both sides, the trial Court passed the following order in I.A.No.1535 of 2022:

“14. …There is no material available on record to arrive to a conclusion that the Respondent due rents and also as to the quantum of rent amount, therefore at this premature stage of the proceedings without recording evidence no finding can be given as to quantum of rent and arrears of rent, as the arrears amount and due amount is not established by the Petitioner accordingly the Respondent cannot be directed to deposit the money under Order XV-A of CPC. Accordingly the point is answered against to the Petitioner.

15. In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.”

4. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred pleading that there is admission by the respondent that she could not pay rents due to Covid-19 lockdown and that a false statement is made that the revision petitioner has locked the premises and did not allow the respondent to run her business. Further, it is pleaded that the jural relationship is acknowledged, the possession is also acknowledged, but the relief of depositing of arrears of rent is dismissed by the trial Court.

5. During arguments in revision, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there is no denial of rent to be paid and the arrears of rent to be paid and therefore, there is serious error committed by the trial Court in dismissing the I.A. under revision.

6. Per contra, the case of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the premises was vacant since September, 2019 and therefore, the question of liability to pay arrears of rents from September, 2019 does not arise.

7. In view of the rival contentions, the trial Court held that there is dispute about the quantum of rent to be paid and whether or not the respondent was in possession of the leased premises from September, 2019, onwards and therefore, no order can be passed for depositing rent under Order XV-A of C.P.C.

8. When the petition filed under Order XV-A and counter are perused, it is seen that the revision petitioner is claiming deposit of rents from December, 2017 onwards up to November, 2021, beginning at Rs.40,263/- per month