HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No. 1744 of 2011 DATED: 16.09.2011 Between: G. Ramu .. Petitioner And Toufeeq Ali Mirza .. Respondent O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 08.04.2011 passed in I.A. No. 85 of 2010 in O.S. No. 1595 of 2010 by IV Additional Rent Controller-cum-XVI Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad whereby the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 151 CPC to direct the revision petitioner-defendant to pay arrears of yearly municipal tax of the suit schedule property at the rate of Rs.2000/- per year for 16 years totaling Rs.32,000/- to the credit of the suit, was allowed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant is that the petitioner is not liable to pay the property tax of the suit schedule premises because the respondent has not filed any suit either for recovery of property tax or for enforcement of the terms of the lease deed, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the order under revision. Admittedly, the respondent is the landlord of the building bearing premises No.H.No.8-2-120/86/9/A/17, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and the petitioner is the tenant therein and paying monthly rent of Rs.4,600/- in accordance with the lease deed executed in his favour. When the petitioner defaulted in payment of rents, the respondent issued notice dated 04.03.2010 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act demanding his eviction from the suit premises, and the petitioner issued reply notice dated 11.03.2010 indicating his refusal to vacate the suit premises. While so, the petitioner filed O.S. No.278 of 2010 seeking an injunction restraining the respondent from evicting him from the suit schedule property without following due process of law. Subsequently, the respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 1595 of 2010 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the schedule property and to handover vacant possession of the same to the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed the present application seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay arrears of yearly Municipal tax of the schedule property at rate of Rs.2000/- per year for 16 years. From a careful perusal of the impugned order, it is manifest that in the cross-examination of the petitioner who was examined as PW1 in O.S.No.278 of 2010, he admitted that he had not paid the property tax in respect of suit premises for 16 years and has to pay the same for such period. This piece of evidence is further strengthened by Clause 17 of the lease deed dated 21.01.2009 said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner which clearly postulates that the lessee shall pay the Municipal Property Tax of the said premises as and when assessed by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner, in categorical terms, has undertaken the responsibility of paying the tax to the municipal authorities as termed in the lease deed, and accordingly, he is liable to pay the arrears of tax as demanded by the municipal authorities. For the foregoing reasons, I see no ground whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 16.09.2011 bcj