Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 394 (AP)

Sangita Agarwal, W/o. Ritesh Agarwal v. Sneha Pusph Traders Private Limited

2009-06-22

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2009
Judgment :- The respondent filed O.S. No. 552 of 2008 in the Court of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner, for eviction from the suit schedule premises. It has also filed I.A.No.525 of 2008 under Order XVA of C.P.C., with a prayer to direct the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent, amounting to Rs.81,840/-, for the period from 01.08.2007 to 31.03.2008, and for a direction to the respondent to deposit the rent from 01.04.2008 onwards. The petitioner filed a counter, admitting that the rent is Rs.10,230/-, per month. However, she pleaded that there are no arrears of rent. The trial Court passed an order, dated 22.01.2009, allowing the I.A., as prayed for. The same is challenged in this C.R.P. Sri. Bajarang Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the trial Court, in exercise of power under Order XVA of C.P.C., can direct to deposit arrears of rent, it cannot decide the dispute as to the quantum of rent or arrears. He contends that when there is a dispute as to rent or arrears, the question has to be decided in the suit itself, after recording evidence, and it is not at all competent for the Court to express opinion on such aspects, in an application under Order XVA of C.P.C. Sri S.Balchand, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the provision is comprehensive enough, and even where any dispute exists, as to rent or arrears, the Court can express its opinion on the material available on record, at that stage. There is no dispute as to the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, as a lessee and lessor. In all fairness, the petitioner has also admitted the quantum of rent. Order XVA of C.P.C., was introduced through a Statement amendment. The object thereof is to protect the interests of the owners of the premises, whenever suits for the relief of eviction, are filed. In all fairness, the petitioner has also admitted the quantum of rent. Order XVA of C.P.C., was introduced through a Statement amendment. The object thereof is to protect the interests of the owners of the premises, whenever suits for the relief of eviction, are filed. The provision reads as under: “Striking off defence in a suit by a lessor: (1) In any suit by a lessor or a licensor against a lessee or a licensee, as the case may be, for his eviction with or without the arrears of rent or licence fee and future mesne profits from him, the defendant shall deposit such amount as the court may direct on account of arrears up to the date of the order (within such time as the Court may fix) and thereafter continue to deposit in each succeeding month the rent or licence fee claimed in the suit as the court may direct. The defendant shall, unless otherwise directed, continue to deposit such amount till the decision of the suit. In the event of any default in making the deposits, as aforesaid, the Court may subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) strike off the defence. (2) Before passing an order for striking off the defence, the Court shall serve notice on the defendant or his Advocate to show cause as to why the defence should not be struck off, and the Court shall consider any such cause, if shown in order to decide as to whether the defendant should be relieved from an order striking off the defence. (3) The amount deposited under this rule shall be paid to the plaintiff lessor or licensor or his Advocate and the receipt of such amount shall not have the effect or prejudicing the claim of the plaintiff and it shall not also be treated as a waiver of notice of termination.” From a perusal of the same, it is clear that a direction, as to payment of rent as well arrears, can be given even where any dispute exists as to the quantum thereof. The portion underlined above, signifies the power of the Court, in this regard. The only difference of that the nature of enquiry to be undertaken, in this regard, cannot be equated to the one in the suit. Within the parameters stipulated, under Order XVA of C.P.C., the Court can certainly determine the rent as well as arrears. The portion underlined above, signifies the power of the Court, in this regard. The only difference of that the nature of enquiry to be undertaken, in this regard, cannot be equated to the one in the suit. Within the parameters stipulated, under Order XVA of C.P.C., the Court can certainly determine the rent as well as arrears. For instance, if a defendant, in a suit, pleads payment of rent, but falls to produce even prima facie evidence, in that behalf, a direction certainly be given for payment of arrears. Similarly, if there is dispute as to the quantum of arrears, receipts for the previous months or other similar record would provide adequate guidance to ascertain the same. In the instant case, the petitioner pleaded that there are no arrears. However, she failed to state the manner in which the rents for the period involved, were paid. The trial Court took the same into account, while allowing the I.A. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed and four weeks time is granted to the petitioner to clear the arrears. There shall be no order as to costs.