Allowed

M/s. Yamini Estates v. M/s. Krd Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Telangana HC1 Feb 2024CRP/1353/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging dismissal of an interim application for deposit of admitted rent arrears. Court directed respondent to deposit arrears from filing date, paid monthly rent in advance for withdrawal rights, and directed trial court to conclude suit promptly.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to deposit admitted arrears from date of filing I.A.; petitioner to deposit monthly rent to withdraw without security; trial court to conclude suit at earliest.

M/s. Yamini Estates Vs M/s. Krd Exports Pvt. Ltd. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIRST^{DAY OFFEBRUARY}

¶3

TwO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HOi{OURABLE SltlT^{JUSTICE K. SUJANA} CML REV]S^{IONPEIITION NO:1} oF2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

[rUs. Yamini Estates, a Partne6hip^Firm, Having its office at Vega Solar^{Energyfut. Ltd.} , Plot f.l,o. 18&8, Phase lll, IDA Cherlapally, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal^{- MalkajgiriDistrict,} Rep by its Partner, Mr. Vinay^Keesara

¶8

Petitio ner/Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

M/s. KRD Exporb tut. Ltd., Having its registered otrce at^{Plot t'lo. 219/8/1,} Phase ll, lDA, Chedapally, Ghat(esar^Mandal, Medchal - Malkaigiri Disfict, Rep by its M. D. Mr. ArutaCharan^Reddy

¶11

RespondenURespondent

¶12

Petition under Anicb 227^{of the Constitutionof lndh, prayingthat in the circurmlances} stated in the^{grounds filed herein, the High court may be pleased to set asidetheordermade in} l.A.No. 184 of 2020 in O.^{S. No. 425of 2020,dated 05 01.2022, (NewNumberO.S No 865of} 2022) on the file of^the lx^{Additionalseniorcivil Judge,at L. B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy Diskict} (Now on the file of the ll Additional Senior^{Civil Judgecum ll Additional AssistantSessions Judge,} Malkaigiri).

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶14

Petition under section¹⁵¹ cPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit} filed in support of the^petition, the^{Highcourtmay be pleased to grantinterim ordersdirectiflg the} Respondent to deposit the monthly rental amount^{of Rs. 1,6'1,0511 (RupeesOne Lakh Sixty One} Thousand Fifty One Only) every month with the^{Petitioneror withthisCourt.}

¶15

lA NO:2 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthatin the circumstances statedin the affidavit} filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to grant interim ordersdirecting the} Respondent to pay an amountof Rs. 15,62,194/-^{(Rupees FifteenLakhs Sixty Two ThousandOne} Hundred and Ninety- Four Only).

¶17

For the Petitioner: Sri R. Sushanth Reddy, Advocate

¶18

For the Respondent: Sri V. Srihari, Advocate

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA

¶21

CwIL REVISION PETITION t{o. 1353 OF 2023

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present Civil Revision Petition is hled by the plaintiff against the order dated 05.01.2022 in I.A.No. 184 of 2O2O in O.S.No. 425 of 2O2O on the file of learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short 'the trial Court), wherein, the I.A. filed seeking direction to defendant to deposit the admitted rents in respect of suit schedule property, is dismissed.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

¶25

The facts of the case are that the plaintiff/ revision petitioner herein filed the suit against the respondent/ defendalt for eviction, payment of arrears of rents and future mesne prolits over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The defendant being lessee made defaults in pa5rment of rents and after veriffing the ledger books it is found to be Rs. 1O,05,SO1/towards monthly rent and TDS as on 31.05.2020. In spite of giving several reminders, the defendant being lessee lailed to

¶26

¶27

sKs./ CRP No. 1353 of2023

¶28

clear the arr€ar paym€nts to the plaintiff and also failed to handover the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff despite terminaLion of lease vide quit notice dated 05.1O.2O 19. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed a suit. Along with the suit, he also frled I.A.No. 184 of 2020 under Order XV-A read with l5l of Civil Procedure Code, seeking direction to the defendant to deposit the admitted rents in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶29

By the impugned order dated O5.O1.2O22, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed the present revision petition.

¶30

Heard Sri. R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as Sri. V. Srihari, Iearned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record.

¶31

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff contended ttrat the trial Court without giving any finding, erroneously, dismissed the said I.A on the ground that he has not proved arrears of rent. [rarned counsel further contended ttrat the respondent/defendant admitted the quantum of lease under the lease deed, as

¶32

¶33

s(s.J CRP No. 1353 of2023

¶34

\ \

¶35

such, prayed the Court to allow the Civil Revision petition setting aside the impugned order.

¶36

On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondents contended that lease deed was executed for a period of five years from O1.1O.2016 up to 30.O4.2021. Learned Counsel further contended that the revision petitioner failed to menLion about the alleged defaults committed in paying the monthly rents and how the arrears calculated by him. It is lastly contended that due to covid pandemic in the lock down period, the premises i.e., suit schedule property was closed, as such, they could not pay the rents of that period and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

¶37

In vie'a' of the rival submissions made both the counsel, this Court has perused the record and found that the lease deed was executed vide unregistered rental deed dated O1.1O.2016. Since the rental deed is unregistered, the lease is deemed to be of month-to-month tenancy and was extended from O1.10.2016 to 3O.O4.2O2t. Since the respondent/defendant admitted the quantum of lease and also lease deed, this Court feels that ends of justice would

¶38

¶39

5K5."/ CRP No. 1353 of2023

¶40

¶41

meet if a direction is given to the respondent herein to pay the monthly rent and arrears in respect of suit schedule property.

¶42

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the respondent herein to deposit the arrears at the rate agreed under the lease deed from the date of liling of the impugned I.A., before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date receipt of copy of ttris Order. Further, the revision peLitioner shall continue to deposit the admitted monthly rents on or before 5h of every month. On such deposit of arrears, the revision petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of the suit i.e., O.S.No. 425 of 2O2O after giving due opportunity to both the parties, at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶44

closed.

¶45

SD'. T.^JAYASREE ASSISTAI{T^REGISIRAR ,TTRUE^COPY" OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

1 2 The rx The ll Additional Additionar-seniorlivil^{Senior CivilJudgfJu9-se' atL,i} ii,Iffi i1T.1flr?r3,f,lt'.1n., Markaisiri 3 cffi Ui;''il R.^{srinantnReddv-Advocate[oPUCl} 4 6,ii cc i6^{sri v s,ihari,Advocate[oPUCl} E Two CD^CoPies \ V

HIGH COURT

DATED:l110212024

ORDER

CRP.No.1353 of 2023

1 i\1:. S TA, €'
o
(v
2'.
iJ oB APB 2024 a
-a',
oEspa-rcB,-o

¶53

REVISION IS DISPOSED OF, NO COSTS

¶54

-\tJC

M/s. Yamini Estates v. M/s. Krd Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Yamini Estates v. M/s. Krd Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Yellamma , Besta Yellamma Vs Sri Abdulla Bin Abdur Raheem

Rangaraju Chinnu Bai Vs The Additional Collector (Revenue)

Y.Lalitha Vs K.Mohan

Abdul Qadeer Vs Asma Begum

Gaddam Satyanarayan Reddy, Vs Devasani Shekaraiah

Qazi Nawabuddin Vs The District Collector