THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1575 OF 2014 Dated:14-08-2014 Between:
Smt. Safia Banu
... PETITIONER
AND
Jitender Kumar and another
.. RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1575 OF 2014 ORDER:
The respondents filed O.S No. 611 of 2013 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule properties. It was stated that the property was leased under a document dated 29-11-20011 at the rent of Rs.40,000/- per month for the premises and Rs.25,000/- per month for fixtures and that the same was to be enhanced to Rs.75,600/- per month for the second year and Rs.81,700/- per month for the subsequent year. Alleging that the petitioner failed to pay the rents regularly, the respondents got issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy by the end of June, 2013 and that the same was followed by the filing of the suit.
The respondents also filed I.A No. 1751 of 2013 under Order XVA of the CPC, with a prayer to direct the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent and to continue to pay the rents. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court passed order dated 10-03-2014 directing the petitioner to pay the rents at Rs.50,600/- per month for the months of November and December, 2013 and at the rate of Rs.56,700/- per month from January, 2014 onwards. The said order is challenged in this revision.
Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client has incurred huge expenditure for renovation of the premises and considerable amount was also paid towards advance and that the trial Court did not take the same into account. He contends that when there is a serious dispute about the quantum and arrears of rent, the trial Court ought to have relegated the same to the stage of trial.
Sri A.K. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the rent is stipulated in the registered lease deed itself and as a matter of fact, the trial Court ought to have awarded enhanced amount in terms thereof.
The petitioner does not dispute that she is the tenant in respect of the suit schedule properties. The relationship is governed by the registered lease deed. Though it provides for periodical enhancement of rent, the trial Court took into account the undisputed rents and passed the order. The plea of the petitioner that she has incurred expenditure for renovation of the premises or that she has paid huge amount towards advance cannot be considered. The reason is that it is only when a written permission is accorded for incurring expenditure for renovation of the premises and a provision is made for adjustment of the rents, that the plea of the petitioner can be accepted. Similarly, the advance can be adjusted towards arrears of rent, if only there is a written arrangement to that effect. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted the facility of clearing the arrears in three bimonthly instalments commencing from the 1st of September, 2014.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
14-08-2014
ks