The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order directing the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent enhanced in accordance with the lease deed terms. The court held that the lower court acted within its bounds.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIX DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5728 OF 2009
Between :
Saritha Khatri .... PETITIONER
A N D
Pramod Kumar Gupta …RESPONDENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5728 OF 2009
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 04.11.2009 in I.A. No.1196 of 2009 in O.S.No. 889 of 2009, on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed seeking direction against petitioner to deposit arrears of admitted rents and property tax till the disposal of the suit, was allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the admitted rent is only Rs.6,900/- and the respondent has not fulfilled any one of the terms and conditions of the lease deed and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to pay the rent @ Rs.6,900/- per month.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that as per the terms of the lease deed, for every two years
the rent has to be enhanced by 15% and that the trial court basing on the terms and conditions in the lease deed enhanced the rent from Rs.6,900/- to Rs.7,935/- and that the said fixation is only a temporary fixation .
4. As per the lease deed, the lease period is expired and the lease is terminated by issuing a statutory notice. As long as the tenant is in possession of the property he can be termed as tenant holding owner and till such time he is liable to pay rents as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed. Admittedly, there is a clause in the lease deed whereunder and whereby, the rent has to be enhanced by 15% for every two years. Basing on the said clause, the trial court rightly determined the rent payable to the respondent @ Rs.7,935/-. Hence, the trial court acted within its bounds and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for the interference of this Court.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
_______________ K.C.BHANU. J
APRIL 26, 2010. YVL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.572800 OF 2009
DATED 26.04.2010
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order allowing the tenant to pay arrears of admitted rents enhanced by 15% for every two years as per the lease deed requires interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Saritha Khatri
Pramod Kumar Gupta
K.C. BHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
