Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 935 (AP)

Nand Kishore Gandhi v. R. A. Ramakrishnan

2014-07-25

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2014
Judgment 1. Respondent is the tenant of the petitioner in respect of Shop No.3, Ground Floor bearing Municipal No.5-3-40/41, Plot No.7, Jeera Compound, Secunderabad. He filed suit, being O.S.No.526 of 2012 against the petitioner for the relief of injunction, not to evict him except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. After entering appearance in the suit, the petitioner filed counter claim for eviction and for recovery of rents and arrears. He has also filed I.A.No.39 of 2013 in O.S.No.526 of 2012 under Order XV-A of C.P.C., with a prayer to direct the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.82,725/-representing the arrears of rent and continue to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.8,100/-per month. He stated that the rents are not being paid for the past several years. The application was opposed by filing a counter affidavit. An objection was raised as to the very maintainability of the I.A. The trial Court, through order dated 4.9.2013, dismissed the I.A. Hence the present civil revision petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The respondent admitted that he is the tenant of the petitioner, in respect of the suit schedule property. In para-4 of the plaint, he stated that the rent was Rs.7,000/-per month, from 1.12.2009 to 30.11.2009; Rs.7,500/- per month from 1.12.2010 to 30.11.2011 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.8,100/- per month. He claimed the relief of injunction against the petitioner from interfering with the suit schedule premises. The petitioner, on the other hand, filed counter claim for eviction as well as recovery of rents under Order XV-A of C.P.C. 4. The trial Court took the view that the petition under Order XV-A of C.P.C. can be filed only in a suit for eviction and not in a counter claim. Such a view is not correct. Whatever applies to suits, would equally apply for counter claims also. For all practical purposes, the counter claim is as good as an independent suit. Therefore, the rejection of the application, as not maintainable cannot be sustained in law. 5. The arrears were claimed from 1.3.2012. Though there is some controversy as to the date from which the arrears are due, there is no uncertainty regarding quantum of rent. In para-4 of the plaint itself, the respondent admitted that the rent from 1.12.2011 is Rs.8,100/- per month. 5. The arrears were claimed from 1.3.2012. Though there is some controversy as to the date from which the arrears are due, there is no uncertainty regarding quantum of rent. In para-4 of the plaint itself, the respondent admitted that the rent from 1.12.2011 is Rs.8,100/- per month. This Court is of the view that the respondent can be required to deposit the arrears of rent from the date of filing of the I.A. 6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 4.9.2013 passed by the trial Court. The I.A. is allowed, directing the respondent to pay arrears of rent from the date of filing of the I.A., at the rate of Rs.8,100/-per month and continue to pay rent at that rate, during the pendency of the suit. The arrears shall be paid within a period of six weeks from today. In default, the consequences provided for under Order XV-A of C.P.C., shall ensue. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this revision petition shall stand closed.