Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 448 (AP)

Sri Vasavi Boys Hostel & Mess v. K. Satya Prasad

2012-04-19

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment : This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 28.06.2011, in I.A.No.1075 of 2010 in O.S.No.2037 of 2010, on the file of the learned V Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and also for damages for unauthorised use and occupation of the suit premises. One P.Ramachandra Murthy, who claims to be the GPA of the respondent, pleaded that the latter is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and that since he is in USA, he is looking after and managing the property. He has further pleaded that he has let out the suit schedule property to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/-, exclusive of maintenance, electrical and water charges, from December, 2009, and that the suit premises is being used for running a boys hostel. He, however, pleaded that the petitioner has paid monthly rents to him only for the month of December, 2009 and committed default in payment of rent from January, 2010. That he has got issued legal notice, dated 09.06.2010, to the petitioner demanding payment of arrears of rent of Rs.3,00,000/-from January, 2010 to June, 2010 and to vacate the suit schedule premises and that having received the said legal notice, the petitioner did not pay the arrears of rent and vacate the premises. The respondent has accordingly sought for a direction to the petitioner to pay/deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-towards arrears of rent and continue to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.75,000/-per month pending the suit. The petitioner filed counter affidavit, wherein he has denied any privity of contract between him and the respondent or his GPA. He has pleaded that one Nirmala, who claimed to be the owner of the suit schedule premises, has let out the first and second floors of the suit schedule premises to him on a monthly rent of Rs.24,000/-, that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-was paid by him to the said Nirmala as advance. It is further averred that as he has declined to accept the demand to enhance the rent from Rs.24,000/-to Rs.50,000/-, the said Nirmala has disconnected water and electricity connections. He asserted that he has been paying rent to the said Nirmala at the rate of Rs.25,000/-. It is further averred that as he has declined to accept the demand to enhance the rent from Rs.24,000/-to Rs.50,000/-, the said Nirmala has disconnected water and electricity connections. He asserted that he has been paying rent to the said Nirmala at the rate of Rs.25,000/-. The lower Court by order, dated 28.06.2011, allowed the application filed by the respondent by directing the petitioner to deposit all the arrears of rent by 20.08.2011 and also to pay (sic deposit) rents regularly on or before 20th of every month to the credit of the suit, failing which, the defence of the petitioner will be struck off. On a careful perusal of the order of the lower Court, I am unable to refrain from expressing the view that the manner in which the learned V Additional Senior Civil Judge has passed the order is thoroughly unsatisfactory. When there is a dispute relating to the quantum of rent, competency of GPA of the respondent and also whether the petitioner was paying rents to one Nirmala at the rate of Rs.25,000/-, the learned Judge has failed to advert to any of these aspects. Order XV-A CPC as inserted by the Parliament was amended by the State of Andhra Pradesh which reads as under: “Order XV-A: (1) In a suit for recovery of possession, on termination of lease, or licence, with or without a prayer for recovery of arrears of rent, or licence fee, known with whatever description, the defendant, while filing his written statement, shall deposit the amount, representing the undisputed arrears, calculated upto that due into the Court and shall continue to deposit such amount, which becomes payable thereafter within one week from the date on which it becomes due, till the judgment is rendered in the suit. (2) Where the defendant pleads in the written statement that no arrears of rent or licence fee exists, it shall be competent for the Court to pass an order in this regard, after affording opportunity to both the parties, and in case any amount is found due, the defendant shall be under obligation to deposit the same, within the time stipulated by the Court and continue to deposit the amount which becomes payable thereafter, as provided under Rule 1: Provided that the time stipulated for payment of amount, as aforesaid, may be extended by the Court for reasons to be recorded for a period not exceeding 15 days. If the defendant commits default in making the deposits, as aforesaid, the Court shall strike off the defence. On such deposit it shall be competent for the plaintiff to withdraw the same. Explanation:-The expression “the amount representing the undisputed arrears” shall mean the sum of rent, or licence fee calculated for the period for which it remained unpaid, after deducting from it any amount. 1. paid as tax, to a local authority, in respect of the property, 2. paid to the plaintiff under written acknowledgement, and 3. deposited into the Court, in any proceedings, in relation to the said property.” The above quoted provision which is applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh is at variance with Order XV-A CPC inserted by the Parliament. The lower Court has completely lost site of the A.P.Amendment, which enjoins upon the defendant to deposit undisputed arrears. Under this provision, even if the defendant pleads in the written statement that no arrears of rent or licence exists, the lower Court shall be competent to pass an order after affording opportunity to both the parties and in case any amount is found due, the defendant shall be under obligation to deposit the same, within the time stipulated by the Court and continue to deposit the amount which becomes payable thereafter. The provision further provides that on such deposit, it shall be competent for the plaintiff to withdraw the same. Thus, according to the A.P.Amendment, the Court has jurisdiction to direct deposit of admitted arrears and in case there is a dispute with regard thereto, it shall hold an enquiry into the same and pass an order as to whether arrears exist and if so, the quantum thereof. No such exercise has been undertaken by the lower Court. Thus, according to the A.P.Amendment, the Court has jurisdiction to direct deposit of admitted arrears and in case there is a dispute with regard thereto, it shall hold an enquiry into the same and pass an order as to whether arrears exist and if so, the quantum thereof. No such exercise has been undertaken by the lower Court. Under point No.2, the lower Court has merely directed deposit “all the arrears of rent” by 20.08.2011 without specifying the exact alleged arrears of rent. Such an approach on the part of the learned Judge cannot be appreciated. For the above-mentioned reasons, the order under revision is set aside. The lower Court is directed to hold an enquiry into the various issues raised by the petitioner as noted above and pass a comprehensive order. The amount already deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order of this Court shall be allowed to lie in deposit till a fresh order is passed by the lower Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.Nos.5158 of 2011 and 1279 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.