Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 232 (AP)

Gullapalli Vijayasree v. Rednam Satyavathi

2013-03-28

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
Order: Both these revisions are between the same parties and against the same order, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in C.R.P. No.5990 of 2010. 3. Respondents are owners of a building situated at a commercial locality i.e., Rednam Gardens, Vishakapatnam. Petitioner is their tenant. Respondents filed O.S. No.985 of 2003 in the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vishakapatnam, for eviction of the petitioner and recovery of damages. The trial Court decreed the suit and determined the damages at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month. Aggrieved by that, petitioner preferred A.S. No.224 of 2010 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Vishakapatnam. Respondents filed I.A. No.2199 of 2010 in that appeal under Order XV-A read with Section 94 (E) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), with a prayer to direct the petitioner to deposit the rents into the Court at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month. The application was opposed by the petitioner. He pleaded that though the trial Court determined the damages at the rate of Rs.21,000/-per month, there was an understanding between him and the respondents for payment of rent at Rs.8,925/-. Through its order dated 09-11-2010, the lower appellate Court allowed the interlocutory application directing the petitioner to deposit the rents at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month. Respondents were permitted to withdraw half of the amount with security and half without security. 4. Petitioner challenged the said order feeling aggrieved by the direction as to deposit of rents. Respondents, on the other hand, filed C.R.P. No.6140 of 2010 feeling aggrieved by the condition as to furnishing bank guarantee for withdrawal of half of the deposited amount. 5. Heard Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. This is a typical case, where the facility provided for under Order – XV-A of CPC was invoked at the stage of appeal. It is not in dispute that in the suit filed by the respondents for eviction and recovery of damages, no application was filed under that provision during the pendency of the suit. It was filed for the first time during the pendency of the appeal. 7. It is not in dispute that in the suit filed by the respondents for eviction and recovery of damages, no application was filed under that provision during the pendency of the suit. It was filed for the first time during the pendency of the appeal. 7. One of the requirements for a Court to pass an order under Order – XV-A of CPC is that there should not be any dispute as to quantum of rent or the liability to pay the same. In the instant case, rent was determined by the trial Court while disposing of the suit itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any dispute as to quantum of rent, though such determination was subject to the right of appeal of the petitioner. 8. Petitioner pleaded that the rent, which was fixed at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month by the trial Court, was varied with the consent of the parties. That plea could have been accepted, if only, something in writing is placed before the lower appellate Court. No such effort was made. On the other hand, respondents flatly denied existence of any such arrangement. Hence, no exception can be taken to the directions issued by the lower appellate Court for deposit of the rents into the Court during the pendency of the appeal. 9. Therefore, C.R.P. No.5990 of 2010 is dismissed. 10. Petitioner does not dispute that the respondents are owners of the property. The very purpose of requiring the tenant or lessee of a premises to deposit the rents pending disposal of the suits, is to avoid inconvenience and hardship to the owner. The condition requiring the respondents to furnish bank guarantee for withdrawal of half of the rents is certainly onerous. 11. Therefore, C.R.P. No.6140 of 2010 is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited, in compliance of the orders passed by the lower appellate Court in I.A. No.2199 of 2010, without furnishing any security. Three (03) months time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent, if any. 12. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions filed in these revisions shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.