AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dt.19.02.2021 passed in Interlocutory Application
No.175 of 2020 in O.S.No.303 of 2020 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.
The petitioners herein are defendant nos.1 and 2 in the said suit.
The case of the 1st respondent/petitioner
The 1st respondent had filed the said suit against petitioner for eviction of petitioner from the suit schedule property and for a direction to pay a sum
of Rs.17 lakhs towards arrears of rent along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, and also to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards mesne profits from
01.10.2020 till actual delivery of possession to respondent.
It is the case of respondent in the above suit that she is the owner of the subject premises and had let it out to petitioners under a registered Lease
Deed dt.25.09.2019 for residential purpose for a period of two years from 01.10.2019 to 30.09.2021, that the monthly rent from 01.10.2019 to
31.07.2020 was Rs.2 lakhs p.m., and from 1.08.2020 to 30.08.2021, the rent was Rs.2,50,000/- p.m.
She contended that the premises was let out for the purpose of residence only and petitioners were not permitted to carry on any trade or activity
which is regarded as unlawful and illegal and they were also not permitted to sub-let the premises without any consent in writing from the respondent.
She further contended that from February, 2020 rents were not paid by petitioners; that she got issued a legal notice on 16.06.2020 giving three
months’ time to the petitioners to vacate the premises by 30. 09.2020 by paying all the arrears of rent, but they got returned the legal notice as
‘not claimed’.
The case of the petitioners /defendants 1 and 2
Written Statement was filed by petitioners contending that the lease was granted to them for commercial use for running hospitality business /
services under the name ‘Hotel Sierra Sky’ and the petitioners had invested huge amounts of money and they were ratified by the
respondent’s GPA Holder.
They stated that later they came to know that respondent had only conditional ownership of the property as the State Government had allotted it to
her only for her personal residence, and that she was not entitled to convey the property to any other person. It is also stated that the Bharani
Residents’ Lay-out Association also questioned the use of the property for commercial purposes, and petitioners were victims of fraud committed
by 1st respondent.
The respondent/plaintiff filed Interlocutory Application No.175 of 2020 under Order 15-A of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for a direction to the
petitioners to pay arrears of rent from February, 2020 to July, 2021 at the rate of Rs.2 lakh per month and also to pay rents at the rate of Rs.2.50 lakhs
for August and September, 2020 with interest at the rate of 18% per month on the unpaid rents, and for a further direction to pay rents from October,
2020 at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/-per month till actual vacating of the suit schedule property and handing over of possession to the respondent.
The contents of the plaint were reiterated by the respondent.
Counter-affidavit was filed by petitioners reiterating the stand taken by them in the Written Statement.
The respondent marked Exs.P.1 to P.10, and petitioners marked Exs.R.1 to R.3.
The order of the Court below in I.A.No.175 of 2020
By order dt.19.02.2021, the Court below allowed the said application and directed the petitioners to pay arrears of rent of Rs.18,10,250/- within
three months from the date of the said order. It also directed them to pay rents from October, 2020 to January, 2021 at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per
month within three months, and further directed petitioners to pay rents continually at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per month on or before 5th of every
succeeding month from February, 2021 till date of handing over the possession.
After extracting the contentions of both sides, the Court below observed that there is issue as to whether the property was let out for residential or
commercial purpose and it is a triable issue and will be decided only after full trial.
It also observed that whether the respondents’ father himself inaugurated the business started by the petitioners in the subject premises, was
also a triable issue, and this will be decided after taking into account the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties.
It held that, at this stage, being tenants using the premises, the petitioners are liable to pay rents. It noted that there was no issue with regard to
rate of rent for August, 2020 and September, 2020, and there is also liability to pay interest as per a clause in the Lease Deed.
It also observed that if the petitioners contend that they are victims of fraud they are entitled to take action legally against the respondent, but as
long as they were tenants of the property belonging to the respondent they cannot refuse to pay the rent.
The present Revision
Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
Heard the counsel for petitioner.
The counsel for petitioner contended that the order passed by the Court below is erroneous since there was prima facie commission of fraud by
the respondent.
He wanted to rely on Whatsapp chats and contended that the very deed of letting out the premises on lease to petitioners was illegal, and the
Court below, without deciding the validity of the lease, could not have passed the impugned order.
He also stated that huge loss was caused to petitioners by promising a lease of a residential property for commercial purpose and by luring them to
invest huge amounts of money.
Consideration by the Court
The execution of Ex.P.2 â€" Regd.Lease Deed by petitioners in favour of respondent is not in dispute. In the Lease Deed it was specifically
mentioned that the lease is granted for residential purpose and the quantum of rent is also specifically mentioned therein.
Having executed a registered Lease Deed in favour of respondent, the petitioners cannot now contend prima-facie that they were mislead into
executing the Lease Deed because they had started using the property for hospitality services; and also because the contents of the registered Lease
Deed do not mention grant of lease for commercial purpose at all.
As regards the plea that the Government Order, viz., G.O.Ms.No.48 dt.16.01.2004 imposed a condition on the respondent not to alienate the
property is concerned, prima facie, reading of the said G.O. indicates that it prohibits alienation only by way of Gift or Sale. Grant of lease is not
prohibited, prima facie. There is no mention in the G.O. about use of the premises only for personal residence of the respondent, prima facie.
I agree with the view of the Court below that there are triable issues to be gone into as mentioned by it, and that having entered into the possession
under a registered Lease Deed, the petitioners cannot refuse to pay the admitted rents.
I therefore do not find any merit in the Revision and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are granted one month time from today to
comply with the directions given by the Court below in I.A.No.175 of 2020, and in default of such compliance, their defence in the suit shall be struck
off. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.