Telangana High Court
S. Ravichandra Reddy vs Iska Sunil Kumar on 13 July, 2026
IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3545 of 2024
13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
Between:
S. Ravichandra Reddy
...Revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff
and
Iska Sunil Kumar
...Respondent/respondent/defendant
ORDER:
Heard Sri L. Ravi Chandra, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri E. Sreenivas Rao, learned counsel for the
respondent. Perused the record.
2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/
plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the
learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad
(for short “the Trial Court”) in I.A.No.543 of 2024 in O.S.No.583
of 2023 (old I.A.No.415 of 2021 in O.S.No.696 of 2021 on the
file of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad),
::2::
wherein, said petition filed under Order XV-A of CPC seeking
direction to deposit admitted arrears of rent and admitted rent
and mesne profits by the respondent/defendant, has been
dismissed.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed
as they are arrayed in the suit.
4. The plaintiff filed Suit for eviction, recovery of
possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and costs
of the suit from the defendant with respect to subject property
consisting of House No.2, Plot No.172, admeasuring 419
Sq.Yds., with constructed portion of ground plus 3 upper floors
situated at Road No.13, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
5. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the
subject property from the defendant, his wife, and mother for a
total valuable consideration of Rs.2,30,96,000/-. After the
purchase, the defendant expressed intention to continue his
occupation of the suit schedule property for a short period.
Pursuant to said request, a registered lease agreement was
executed vide document No.3350 of 2017 on the date of
execution of sale deed i.e. 08.06.2017. The lease period was
::3::
for a period of 2 years. The plaintiff purchased the schedule
property for his daughter, who is residing in America and
intends to shift to India along with her husband. The plaintiff’s
son-in-law has employment in America which is continuing and
therefore, he intended to continue his stay in the United States
of America for 4 more years. Therefore, the lease was renewed
after 2 years on 16.02.2019 vide document No.1133 of 2019
between the parties. The renewal was again for a period of 2
years, up to 04.01.2021 under registered document No.61 of
2021. There was a condition inserted in the agreement that
whenever the plaintiff requires, the defendant would vacate the
property after 1 year period and there will be no further
extension or renewal. During the entire stay of 5 years period,
the defendant never paid the rent regularly. After lapse of the
agreed lease period, the defendant did not vacate the property
and continued to be in occupation without paying rents. In
spite of several persuasions, the defendant did not vacate the
property. Therefore, after repeated persuasions, the defendant
executed a handwriting letter dated 27.08.2021, agreeing to
vacate the property by 30.10.2021. In spite of the undertaking
given, the defendant did not vacate the property. Therefore, a
::4::
legal notice was issued under Section 106 of Transfer of
Property Act on 08.11.2021, demanding the defendant to vacate
the premises by 30.11.2021. The notice was duly served, but
there was no response from the defendant leading to filing of
the suit for eviction. Along with the suit, a petition was moved
under Order XV-A of CPC demanding payment of rents of
Rs.1,25,000/- per month and arrears up to Rs.6,75,000/- due
and payable by the defendant up to November 2021. Thereafter,
a reply notice was issued on 20.12.2021, denying the landlord-
tenant relationship. The defendant created a false story that the
transaction inter-se between the parties was nothing but a loan
transaction but not a sale transaction, with the registered
documents executed as security.
6. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.415 of 2021 for deposit of
rents. Said, I.A was allowed by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge
in which the defendant preferred C.R.P No.552 of 2023 before
this court. While said revision petition was pending, the
defendant was directed to deposit the admitted amount of rents
from December, 2021 till 24.03.2023 in three monthly
instalments. The defendant complied with said order by
depositing first instalment of Rs.6,67,000/- on 24.03.2023.
::5::
Thereafter, the I.A was remanded to the lower court for fresh
disposal, as documents were not marked when the I.A was
disposed of. Thereafter, the defendant filed suit in O.S.No.566
of 2022 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad for cancellation of sale deed document
No.3349 of 2017 and subsequent three registered lease deeds.
The defendant also filed a transfer application before the Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide Transfer OP No.47 of
2023 and the same was dismissed. A revision petition was filed
in CRP No.1660 of 2023 and said petition was allowed with
observations directing transfer of suit for eviction in O.S.No.696
of 2021 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad to the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad to be tried along with O.S.No.566 of 2022.
Upon transfer, O.S.No.696 of 2021 is renumbered as O.S.No.
583 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad. The I.A.No.415 of 2021 is renumbered
as I.A.No.543 of 2024. Said interlocutory application under
Order XV-A of CPC was dismissed holding that the relationship
between the parties as landlord and tenant is denied, that there
is a question of title and validity of sale deeds and lease deeds,
::6::
whose validity can be established only during course of trial,
aggrieved by the same, the present CRP is preferred.
7. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the Trial Court
failed to consider registered documents consisting of registered
sale deeds, three subsequent registered lead deeds and
admission by the defendant about their execution and
therefore, an error is committed in dismissing the application.
Further, there is complete disregard about the handwritten
undertaking letter dated 27.08.2021 written by the defendant
which confirmed intent to vacate the premises by 31.10.2021.
There is no denial about the handwritten letter dated
27.08.2021 by the defendant in the counter and the impugned
order is passed ignoring said handwritten letter of the
defendant. There was irregular payment of rents and the
arrears claimed are Rs.6,25,000/-. There is failure to consider
the documents marked during enquiry in the I.A. There is also
failure to consider the landlord-tenant relationship between the
plaintiff and the defendant on the basis of oral denial. Such an
approach of the Trial Court undermines the legal validity of
registered documents. There is documentary evidence to
establish prima facie case of jural relationship between the
::7::
parties and in that context, error is committed by questioning
the validity of the registered sale deed and lease deeds.
Disbelieving documentary evidence and questioning the jural
relationship between the parties resulted in dismissal of the
application when the defendant is liable to pay Rs.6,25,000/-
towards arrears and Rs.1,25,000/- per month as monthly rent.
The plaintiff contends that the defendant concocted a story with
a mala fide intention and said story is relied upon in the face of
valid legal registered documents. It is urged that there is no
evidence on record to prove the concocted story of the
defendant about a loan transaction. In the backdrop of
aforementioned grounds cited, the plaintiff sought a direction to
the defendant for payment of arrears of rent and monthly rents.
8. The plaintiff submitted oral and written arguments to
the effect that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality
and non-application of mind on account of non-appreciation of
documentary evidence consisting of registered sale deed and
registered lease deeds, coupled with handwritten undertaking
dated 27.08.2021, all of which establish subsisting jural
landlord-tenant relationship. In that context, reference is made
::8::
to the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali 1,
wherein it is held that registered sale deed cannot be undone
except in accordance with law, and mere oral dispute cannot
dilute the sanctity of registered documents. Further, it is
submitted that the defendant has fabricated defence and the
same was considered while dismissing the interlocutory
application prematurely. Further submitted that there is
admission about rent being Rs.1,25,000/- per month from
December, 2021. Reference is made to the case of Jyoti
Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal and others 2, wherein it is held as
follows:
“10. In any event, the grounds on which the Will
was suspected by the trial court cannot be upheld.
It was admitted by the defendants that prior to and
after the death of Ramji Das, rent was paid to the
husband of the plaintiff. It is the contention of the
defendants that prior to the landlord’s death, his
son collected the rent from them on his behalf and
after his death, they paid the rent accepting his
status as a landlord, being the son of the original
landlord. The dispute raised insofar as the
ownership of Ramji Das cannot at all be accepted
since Exhibit P-18, the relinquishment deed issued
by Sua Lal as far back as in 1953, on the strength
of which Ramji Das had given the disputed shop
room on rent to the father of the defendants is
clearly established. The tenant having come into
1
(2020) 7 SCC 366
2
MANU/SC/1261/2025
::9::
possession of the tenanted premises by a rent deed
executed by the earlier landlord, cannot turn
around and challenge his ownership.”
9. On the basis of aforementioned, it is argued that the
existing registered lease agreements (3 in number), prima facie
show existence of landlord-tenant relationship. Further,
reference is made to the case of Asha Rani Gupta v. Vineet
Kumar 3, wherein it is held that the basic requirement under
Order XV Rule 5 of CPC is the character of defendant as being
the tenant of the suit premises, such that on the basis of mere
denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, a defendant
cannot enjoy holidays as regards payment of rent. When there
is denial of status of being a lessee, it is imperative to comply
with requirement of law and to deposit arrears of rent. A denial
simpliciter does not absolve the tenant to deposit the due
amount of rent/damages for use and occupation unless he can
show having made such payment in a lawful and bonafide
manner. Lastly, reference is made to the case of Rattan Singh
and others v. Nirmal Gill and others 4, wherein it is held that
it is necessary to ascertain on whom the onus of proof lies and
that when the record consists of undisputed documents which
3
MANU/SC/0864/2022
4
MANU/SC/0860/2020
::10::
are registered, the settled legal principle is that such a
document is presumed to be genuine as held in Prem Singh
and others v. Birbal and others [(2006) 5 SCC 353]. It is
further held that when there is a presumption about a
registered document validly executed, such a document is
prima facie valid in law. Thus, the onus of proof is on the
person who leads evidence to rebut such a presumption.
10. On the basis of aforementioned citations, the learned
counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff has
produced registered sale deed dated 08.06.2017 showing
ownership, registered lease deeds dated 08.06.2017,
16.02.2019 and 04.01.2021 and therefore, the onus of proof to
rebut the same is on the defendant for which there is not a
single document in support of the concocted story of loan
transaction. It is argued that there is an attempt at misleading
the court during oral arguments by making a misrepresentation
of facts of the case about existence of loan transaction in the
face of registered sale deed and registered rental deeds. There
was a representation about sale consideration being shown as
Rs.2,70,00,000/- but the loan transaction consisted of
Rs.50,00,000 on 26.04.2018 and Rs.7,00,000/- on 10.03.2020.
::11::
According to the plaintiff, there is indeed a loan transaction of
Rs.57,00,000/-. However, said loan transaction is misused for
the purpose of creating a false defence. There is a claim of
repayment of gold loan of Rs.44,00,000/- by the defendant by
bringing the total to Rs.1,87,60,000/-. Whereas, the entries
showing payments made through cheque, RTGS, NEFT or bank
transfer are admitted. There is a denial of the payments
allegedly made by the defendant as blatant lies. Payment of
gold loan is denied. It is pleaded that the complete assertions
made by the defendant are false, that the jural relationship is
established through registered documents and therefore, the
revision petition deserves to be allowed.
11. In written arguments, the defendant made reference to
the pleadings of the written statement about a loan transaction
of Rs.2,30,00,000/- with the defendant. At the time of said loan
transaction, the plaintiff suggested execution of a nominal sale
deed as security for the loan amount but the sale deed was not
to be acted upon. During negotiations, it was agreed that there
will be an equitable mortgage. However, the plaintiff insisted on
registration of a sale deed for release of loan amount. There
were no option for the defendant but to execute the sale deed as
::12::
he was badly in need of money. The defendant took his mother
and wife to the registration office by convincing them that he
was executing a nominal sale deed as security for repayment of
loan. No title or possession was passed to the plaintiff through
the registered sale deed. As on the date of execution of sale
deed, the market value of the suit schedule property was Five to
Six 6 Crores, whereas the mortgage was only for
Rs.2,30,96,000/-. The loan amount was shown as sale
consideration in the sale deed dated 08.06.2017. The loan
amount was to be paid within a period of 3 to 5 years. On the
date of sale deed, the plaintiff obtained a rental deed also from
the defendant. Said matter is not in the knowledge of the
defendant’s mother and wife. The actual understanding was to
pay the loan amount with interest at 2% per month and then
the plaintiff would cancel the sale deed dated 08.06.2017. The
plaintiff also obtained rental deeds dated 16.02.2019 and
04.01.2021 vide registered document Nos.1133 of 2019 and 61
of 2021 respectively. The defendant needed additional amount
of Rs.50,00,000/-. Since the residential property was already
mortgaged, upon insistence, since the defendant and his
mother were absolute owners of property bearing F-2 in ground
::13::
floor in Wind Ward Banjara Complex admeasuring 2132 Sq.Ft.
house property by virtue of sale deed dated 05.08.2004, the
defendant handed over the sale deed dated 05.08.2004 as
security for additional loan amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. The
amount was transferred through RTGS dated 26.04.2018. The
defendant paid amounts towards payment of interest for the
loans, but not rent.
12. The defendant referred to the order passed by the Trial
Court about need for trial to establish the landlord-tenant jural
relationship and the genuineness of the registered documents
submitted by the plaintiff. Further, reference is made to filing of
suit in O.S.No.566 of 2022 seeking cancellation of the sale deed
and the rental deeds together with injunction against the
plaintiff herein. It is alleged that the ratio laid down in Rattan
Singh (4 supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present
case, as said judgment is with regard to validity of a General
Power of Attorney, and as a consequence, execution of sale
deeds executed pursuant thereto. It is further insisted that the
onus of presumption/rebuttal is at the time of trial, but not at
interlocutory stage. On account of denial of jural relationship of
landlord and tenant, the case of Asha Rani Gupta (3 supra) is
::14::
not applicable to the facts of the present case. Referring to the
case of Jyoti Sharma (2supra), it is argued that in said case
there is a finding about the tenant coming into possession of
the tenanted premises and therefore, cannot turn around and
challenge the title of the owner. Said judgment is argued to be
not applicable as the defendant herein did not come into
possession of the premises. As the sale deed and rental deed
were executed on the same day i.e. 08.06.2017 vide two
registered documents.
13. Further, the learned counsel for defendant relied upon
judgment in the case of K. Zakria Shaik v. K. Saleem Basha 5,
wherein it is held that in case, there is a denial of landlord-
tenant relationship and arrears of rent, the application under
Order XV-A of CPC is not the mechanism to recover the
amount. Similarly, it is urged that on account of denial of title
as well as liability to pay arrears of rent, the mechanism under
Order XV-A of CPC is not applicable. In order dated 09.05.2023
in the case of Aritakula Satyanarayana Murthy versus
Patchpulusu Naga Suneetha 6, the High Court of Andhra
5
2011 (4) ALD 757
6
CRP No.857 of 2021
::15::
Pradesh held that when tenant disputed relationship and a
crime is filed for offences under Section 384 and 506 of IPC for
attempted forcible eviction, there is a need to determine the
jural relationship by way of full-fledged trial. Further, it is held
that in the case of Pitta Venkat Rama Narsimha Reddy v.
Nakka Srinivas Yadav [CRP 1146 of 2019], there is denial of
existence of landlord and tenant. Therefore, it is held that the
court below ought not to have allowed application under Order
XV-A of CPC on the ground that the respondent continues to be
owner of the property. Further reference is made to the case of
S. Habeeb and others v. M.F.Shahanaz and another 7,
wherein, it is held that when there is a denial of landlord-tenant
relationship and whether the tenant acquired title needed to be
examined in the suit, no relief ought to be granted under Order
XV-A of CPC as the issue of the tenant acquiring title had to be
examined in the suit. In the case of Jayabharat Automobiles,
Lakshmipuram, Guntur v. Dr. V.S.V. Ramesh 8, it is held that
whenever there is a dispute about liability to pay rents and
dispute about the arrears of rent, the plaintiff is not entitled to
seek relief under Order XV-A Rule 1 or Rule 2 of CPC.
7
2013 (3) ALD 727
8
2013 (5) ALD 120
::16::
14. On the basis of aforementioned citations, the learned
counsel for the defendant argued that there are no merits in the
Civil Revision petition, as the plaintiff is trying to convert a
money lending transaction into a sale transaction. The
defendant is questioning the validity of registered sale deed and
lease deeds and the jural relationship. There are serious
disputes between the parties about the title and therefore,
urged that the plaintiff is not entitled to invoke Order XV-A of
CPC for deposit of admitted rents.
15. The defendant filed reply submissions to the written
submissions filed by the plaintiff referring to the documentary
evidence filed in the interlocutory application contending that
there is no failure on the part of the Trial Court in considering
the undertaking dated 27.08.2021 given by the defendant and
that said document has to be proved during trial. Further, it is
denied that the Trial Court accepted the bald oral denial of
landlord-tenant relationship in the context of filing of suit in
O.S.No.566 of 2022, wherein the defendant’s mother and wife
have sought cancellation of registered sale deed and three
registered rental agreements contending that there is not only
oral denial but there is a comprehensive suit seeking relief
::17::
thereof. Further, it is alleged that no landlord or purchaser
would give a hand loan of Rs.50,00,000/- on 26.04.2018 when
there was a sale within 8 months from the date of the alleged
sale deed dated 08.06.2017. It is argued that the nature of
transaction being a loan transaction of Rs.2,30,00,000/- would
be decided after a full-fledged trial. Lastly, reference is made to
admission about receipt of Rs.1,01,90,000/- through bank
transfers, cheques, RTGS and NEFT. When all the payment
details are mentioned in the counter in I.A.No.543 of 2024 (old
I.A.No.415 of 2021) in O.S.No.583 of 2023 (old O.S.No.696 of
2021) and the written statement filed in O.S.No.583 of 2023, it
is pointed that the plaintiff did not admit or deny the payments
by way of rejoinder. On the basis of aforementioned, it is urged
that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court
in the interlocutory application under revision.
16. When the pleadings of the affidavit, counter affidavit
and the finding given by the Trial Court in the impugned I.A
are considered, it is seen that the plaintiff is alleging existence
of a landlord-tenant jural relationship. The plaintiff claims
to have purchased the suit schedule property from the
defendant vide registered sale deed document No.3349 of 2017
::18::
dated 08.06.2017. The defendant sold the suit schedule
property to the plaintiff to meet his urgent financial needs. The
defendant’s family was residing in the suit schedule property
and the defendant requested to continue with his occupation of
the suit schedule property for some more time and therefore, a
registered rental deed document No.3350 of 2017 dated
08.06.2017 was executed on the same date as sale. Thereafter,
the lease period was extended by 2 more years by executing a
registered rental deed document No.3619 of 2017 dated
20.06.2017. Thereafter, there was agreement between the
parties for extension of the lease by 1 more year and the same
was documented under Rental Deed document No.61 of 2021
dated 04.01.2021. The agreement between the parties was that
the defendant would vacate the suit schedule property
immediately after lapse of the Rental Deed dated 04.01.2021.
However, when there is failure on the part of the defendant to
vacate the suit schedule property, repeated requests were made
and repeated persuasions have taken place and ultimately the
defendant has given a written undertaking on 27.08.2021. Said
undertaking is extracted and produced below:
::19::
"To Hyderabad
S. Ravi Chandra Reddy, 27.08.2021
House Owner,
Villa No.2, Plot No.172,
Road No.13, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad - 500033
Reddy Garu,
In the recent past we are not able to pay your rent
since April, 2021 as per you know about pandemic
circumstances around the world, so I have decided to
vacate the house within 2 months, that is by 30th
October, 2021.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(I. Sunil Kumar)
S/o. Late Vasant Kumar I
Villa No.2, Road No.13,
Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad-5000033
Witness:
1. Sd/- V.C.Prakash Reddy
2. Sd/- N.T.Rama Rao”
17. The above undertaking and the registered documents
are to be perused for the purpose of ascertaining the
relationship of the parties. When the case of defendant is that
there is a loan transaction but no sale with respect to suit
schedule property, the defendant who is an educated person
entering into such a loan transaction seems like an anathema.
The language of the sale deed as well as the registered rental
deeds is crystal clear about the relationship between the
parties, notwithstanding the defence presented by the
::20::
defendant herein. There is a presumption about the
genuineness of registered documents until contra is proven,
likewise, as per Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, until no oral
evidence can be led to disprove the contents of a written
contract. In the instant case, the registered Sale Deed marked
under Ex.P1, the certified copy of Rental Deed under Ex.P2, the
certified copy of Rental Deed under Ex.P4, and the certified
copy of Rental Deed under Ex.P5 are written contracts whose
contents cannot be disputed as per Sections 91 and 92 of
Indian Evidence Act.
18. Coming to the written undertaking dated 27.08.2021
marked under Ex.P6, the defendant in his own handwriting
addresses the plaintiff as house owner and states that he is
unable to pay rent on account of pandemic circumstances and
therefore, he decided to vacate the house within 2 months by
30.10.2021. The words ‘house owner’, ‘rent’ and ‘vacate’, all
refer to the status of a landlord-tenant relationship and
therefore, there is prima facie case of landlord-tenant
relationship between the plaintiff and defendant until contra is
proven. Before the trial takes place and the defendant proves
loan transaction instead of a sale transaction, the documentary
::21::
evidence is clearly weighing in favour of the plaintiff. Further,
the judgment reported in the case of Dahiben (1 supra) about
the presumption as to genuineness of a registered sale deed is
clearly applicable to the registered sale deed marked under
Ex.P1 and the Rental Deeds marked under Exs.P2, P4 and P5.
The denial of existence of landlord-tenant relationship or filing
of a suit for cancellation of registered documents does not
outweigh the contents of registered documents under Exs.P1,
P2, P4 and P5. The loan transactions between the plaintiff and
the defendant notwithstanding, the documents in the registered
sale deed and registered Rental Deeds support the case of the
plaintiff with respect to existence of landlord-tenant
relationship and the payment of monthly rent. Therefore, the
finding of the Trial Court about there being any contradiction
about the sale deed as per pleadings of the affidavit and the
counter and genuineness of the transactions at this stage is not
tenable. As such, there is prima facie case in favour of the
plaintiff and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is
liable to be set aside.
19. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed
setting aside the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by
::22::
the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad in I.A.No.543 of 2024 in O.S.No.583 of 2023.
Consequently, the I.A.No.543 of 2024 is allowed. The defendant
is directed to pay arrears of rent from June, 2021 and shall
continue to pay the monthly rent as per Ex.P5 Rental Deed
dated 04.01.2021, to the credit of suit till its disposal. The
defendant shall pay the arrears of rent within (45) days from
today.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. No costs.
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Dt. 13.07.2026
gvl
