IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.929 of 2025 THE 25^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 Between:

Shaik Amjad …Petitioner and Shri Mohammed Abdul Rahman …Respondent

ORDER:

Heard Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Iliyas, learned counsel for the respondent.

Perused the record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner herein/respondent/defendant aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Narayanpet (for short ‘the Trial Court’) in I.A.No.372 of 2024 in O.S.No.8 of 2022, dated 11.03.2025, wherein, a petition filed by the respondent herein/petitioner/plaintiff under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC seeking striking off defence of the petitioner herein for failure to deposit arrears and monthly rent has been allowed i.e. the petitioner's written statement and evidence were ordered to be struck off.

Facts of the case:

3. The respondent filed suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the petitioner herein. Respondent claimed to be the absolute owner of suit schedule property and having entered into a rental agreement dated 17.10.2017 with the petitioner for a fixed period of 11 months. During the said period of Rental Agreement, there was repeated default on the part of the petitioner in payment of rents. During the years 2018 up to January 2024, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.10,13,500/- whereas the total amounts due were Rs.37,75,997/-. After deducting the amounts paid by the petitioner, the total balance due was Rs.27,62,497/-. The petitioner claimed to have paid Rs.13,00,000/- to the GPA holder of the respondent, but the same is unrelated to the rents payable by the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner constitutes willful default and amounts to intentional disregard for contractual obligations and therefore, the petition was filed to strike off defence.

4. The petitioner pleaded that the suit was filed in the year 2022 and there was no complaint about non-payment of rents. The rent agreed as per rental agreement was Rs.32,000/- per month. The respondent never claimed arrears of rent in the plaint as on 14.03.2022. No claim was made except for damages for use of occupation of the suit schedule property at Rs.1,00,000/- per month. In case, the respondent made any claim for arrears of rent, the petitioner would have paid the same. The petitioner claims that a petition under Order XV-A cannot be filed for a period which is not covered in the plaint. When the suit was filed, the respondent was residing in Dubai and was represented by his GPA holder. When the GPA holder approached, the petitioner with a proposal for executing a fresh lease agreement, there was a demand for payment of Rs.13,00,000/- towards advance rent. The petitioner had transferred Rs.13,00,000/- to the account of GPA holder on 31.10.2018 towards advance rent which was to be adjusted in the future. The new rental agreement was to be executed for a period of five years from December 2018 to November 2023. In spite of transferring Rs.13,00,000/- the petitioner continued to pay amounts to be adjusted in rents. The petitioner disputed payment of only Rs.10,13,500 /- out of total dues of Rs.37,75,997/-. In case, there was any shortage in payment of rent, according to the petitioner, the respondent ought to have filed an application claiming arrears of rent along with the suit itself. There was no such arrears due and therefore, the respondent claimed damages only. There is no rejoinder filed by the respondent disputing payment of Rs.13,00,000/- towards advance rent. Further, it is pleaded that no application under Order XV-A of CPC can be filed once the suit is posted for arguments. There is documentary evidence already recorded on behalf of the parties and therefore, the petition under Order XV-A of CPC is not maintainable. Further, it is pleaded that the respondent was living in Dubai and the petiti