Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 968 (AP)

K. Suneetha Wasley v. A. Manik Rao

2014-08-01

L.N.REDDY

body2014
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. These two revisions are between the same parties in relation to the same dispute. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in C.R.P. No. 3484 of 2013. 3. The petitioners are the owners of premises bearing No. 2-3-145, Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad. The premises were leased to the respondents. The petitioners filed R.C. No. 11 of 2008 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad for eviction of the respondents. One of the grounds pleaded was that the respondents committed default in payment of rents. 4. The petitioners filed I.A. No. 230 of 2010 under Section 11(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act), with a prayer to direct the respondents to deposit arrears of rent. It was pleaded that the respondents did not pay the rents for quite a considerable period. 5. The respondents pleaded that though they took the premises on lease, the petitioners offered to sell the same and accordingly, an agreement of sale was entered into on 19-12-1988 and as against the total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- was paid. Claiming rights under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, it was pleaded that they are not under obligation to pay the rents. It was also mentioned that they filed O.S. No. 91 of 2000 in the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for specific performance of the agreement of sale. 6. The learned Rent Controller passed order dated 21-01-2010 allowing I.A. No. 230 of 2010. It was observed that even if the respondents have an agreement of sale in their favour, they are under obligation to pay the rents till a sale deed is executed in their favour. 15 days time was granted for payment of arrears of rent. 7. The respondents filed R.A. No. 368 of 2010 in the Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, against the order in I.A. No. 230 of 2010. The appeal was dismissed through order dated 23-12-2013. However, two months time was granted for payment of arrears. C.R.P. No. 1130 of 2013 is filed by the respondents against the order in R.A. No. 368 of 2010. 8. The appeal was dismissed through order dated 23-12-2013. However, two months time was granted for payment of arrears. C.R.P. No. 1130 of 2013 is filed by the respondents against the order in R.A. No. 368 of 2010. 8. After the order in I.A. No. 230 of 2010 became final with the dismissal of R.A. No. 368 of 2010, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 89 of 2013 under Section 11(4) of the Act, with a prayer to direct the respondents to put them in vacant possession of the property since the respondents did not pay the arrears, within the stipulated time. The I.A. was opposed by the respondents stating that the delay in deposit of arrears of rent was on account of non-availability of the certified copy of the order in R.A. No. 368 of 2010 and that with some delay, they have already deposited the arrears of rent. It was also pleaded that though O.S. No. 91 of 2000 filed for specific performance of agreement of sale was dismissed by the trial Court, but A.S. No. 76 of 2010 filed by them in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge was allowed, granting the decree of specific performance. Taking these aspects into account, the learned Rent Controller dismissed I.A. No. 89 of 2013 through order dated 08-07-2013. C.R.P. No. 3484 of 2013 is filed against it. 9. Heard Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Both the revisions are referable to the order passed under Section 11(1) of the Act. The respondents did not dispute the non-payment of the rent for some time. The justification pleaded by them was that the petitioners executed an agreement of sale and received substantial consideration and in that view of the matter, there is no necessity to pay the rents for the premises. 11. Such contention was rejected and order under Section 11(1) of the Act was passed. Appeal filed against the same by the respondents was dismissed. Then came the occasion to file an application under Section 11(4) of the Act and accordingly, I.A. No. 89 of 2013 was filed. The same was dismissed by taking note of certain developments. Section 11(4) provides for drastic consequences, in case, the ingredients thereof are established. Appeal filed against the same by the respondents was dismissed. Then came the occasion to file an application under Section 11(4) of the Act and accordingly, I.A. No. 89 of 2013 was filed. The same was dismissed by taking note of certain developments. Section 11(4) provides for drastic consequences, in case, the ingredients thereof are established. The owner of the premises would be entitled to get the possession of the premises without the necessity of proving any other facts such as wilful default in payment of rents or bona fide requirement of the premises. Obviously, because the consequences are drastic, the Legislature has taken care to ensure that every failure to pay the arrears of rent does not entail in eviction. It is only when the amount of arrears was not deposited without there being any reasonable cause, that the order under Section 11(4) of the Act can be passed. 12. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that the plea raised by the respondents that they need not pay the rents on account of there being an agreement of sale in respect of that very property was rejected and the same was upheld by the lower appellate Court. That however was at a time when the suit filed for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale was dismissed. When the present set of proceedings were in progress, A.S. No. 76 of 2010 filed by the respondents was allowed and thereby, the suit was decreed. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the balance of consideration was deposited by the respondents paving the way for execution of the sale deed. It may be true that mere decreeing of the suit for specific performance or deposit of balance consideration does not bring about absolute ownership in favour of the respondents. However, those developments would certainly constitute reasonable cause for the delay in payment of the rents. The learned Rent Controller took note of the factum of the deposit of rents by the time the I.A. was taken up for hearing. With the deposit of such rents, the order passed under Section 11(1) of the Act stood complied with. 13. Therefore, C.R. No. 1130 of 2013 is dismissed as infructuous and C.R.P. No. 3484 of 2013 is dismissed as devoid of merits. 14. With the deposit of such rents, the order passed under Section 11(1) of the Act stood complied with. 13. Therefore, C.R. No. 1130 of 2013 is dismissed as infructuous and C.R.P. No. 3484 of 2013 is dismissed as devoid of merits. 14. The respondents shall be under obligation to pay the rents which in turn shall be subject to the outcome of the second appeal that is filed by the petitioners i.e., the landlords. 15. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.