Telangana High Court
M/S. Buildmate Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs Mr. K. Suryanarayana on 15 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1602 of 2024
ORDER:
(per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Chavali Ramanand, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. P. Sri Ram, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 27.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.29 of 2023 in COS.No.36 of 2022 by the Court of Special Judge For Trial and Disposal Of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commercial Court'), by which, the petitioner has been directed to pay the rents from 01.04.2021 to 31.10.2021 @ Rs.15,62,795/- per 2 CJ & JAK, J C.R.P.No.1602 of 2024 month and continue to pay the future rents on every 5th of English Calendar month till disposal of the suit, failing which, the defence of the petitioner shall be struck off. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.
3. The respondents are joint owners of land measuring Acs.6.28 guntas comprising shed area of 13,200 sq.feet and RCC building (measuring approximately 1800 sq.feet) in Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62 of Gundlapochampally Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property'). The subject property was let out to the petitioner on lease and a lease deed dated 12.01.2015 was executed for a period of five (5) years i.e., from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2019.
4. After expiry of the aforesaid period of lease, the petitioner continued in possession of the subject property as holding over. An unregistered lease deed dated 02.05.2018 was executed between the parties for the period from 01.12.2017 to 31.12.2025. According to the respondents, 3 CJ & JAK, J C.R.P.No.1602 of 2024 under the aforesaid unregistered lease deed, the petitioner agreed to pay rent @ Rs.15,62,795/- per month. It is the case of the respondents that after execution of the unregistered lease deed, the petitioner made payment @ Rs.15,62,795/- per month. However, the petitioner defaulted in making payments of the rent from August, 2020; September, 2020 and March, 2021 onwards.
5. The respondents thereupon filed a suit seeking the relief of eviction as well as arrears of rent for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.10.2021 @ Rs.15,62,795/- per month. Along with the plaint, an application under Order XVA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), as amended in the State of Telangana vide State amendment, was filed. At the instance of the petitioner, the aforesaid civil suit filed by the respondents was transferred for adjudication to the Commercial Court.
6. The Commercial Court by an order dated 27.04.2024 inter alia held that the rent of the subject property was Rs.15,62,795/- per month and the petitioner is in arrears of 4 CJ & JAK, J C.R.P.No.1602 of 2024 rent for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.10.2021. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,88,209/- and the petitioner was further directed to pay the future rent by every 5th of English calendar month till disposal of the suit failing which it was directed that the defence of the respondents shall be struck off. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commercial Court ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Order XVA of CPC as are applicable in the State of Telangana, are not applicable to the proceeding before the Commercial Court. Our attention has been invited to the prayer clause made in the plaint and it has been contended that while passing the impugned order dated 27.04.2024, the Commercial Court has directed the petitioner to pay arrears of rent and thus, has partly decreed the suit which is impermissible in law. It is also submitted that the arrears of rent cannot be sought on the basis of an unregistered lease deed. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been 5 CJ & JAK, J C.R.P.No.1602 of 2024 placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Roy v. M/s. Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd. and others 1.
8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has contended that Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2015 Act'), deals with the amendment to the provisions of CPC in relation to commercial disputes. It is submitted that in the light of the mandate contained in Section 16(3) of the 2015 Act, where any rule of the jurisdictional High Court or amendment to CPC is in conflict with the provisions of CPC, as amended by the 2015 Act, the provisions of CPC as amended by the 2015 Act shall prevail. Therefore, it is submitted that Order XVA of CPC applies to the proceeding before the Commercial Court. It is contended that Schedule to Section 16 of the 2015 Act does not commend the State amendment made to Order XVA of CPC and therefore, the State amendment made to Order XVA of CPC as well as the Schedule which is inserted in the 2015 Act pertaining to the case management can coexist. 1 AIR 1971 SC 751 6 CJ & JAK, J C.R.P.No.1602 of 2024
9. It is argued that the Commercial Court on the basis of material on record has recorded a finding of fact that the rent of the schedule property was Rs.15,62,795/- per month. It is contended that the aforesaid finding of fact cannot be said to be either perverse or based on no evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner had made payment of the rent @Rs.15,62,795/- per month after execution of the unregistered lease deed as well. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Commercial Court is well-reasoned which does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.
11. Admittedly, the respondents had filed a suit, namely, O.S.No.9 of 2022, seeking the relief of eviction as well as the recovery of arrears of rent, before the Commercial Court. Along with the aforesaid civil suit, an Interlocutory Application, namely, I.A.No.75 of 2022 was filed under Order XVA of CPC as mandated by the State Legislature. On 7 CJ & JAK, J C.R.P.No.1602 of 2024 transfer, the aforesaid I.A. was renumbered as I.A.No.29 of 2023 and the civil suit filed by the respondents was renumbered as C.O.S.No.36 of 2022. Order XVA of CPC as applicable in the State of Telangana reads as under:
"(1) In a suit for recovery of possession, on termination of lease, or licence, with or without 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 date 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.
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 amount 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 areas" shall mean the sum of rent, or licence fee, calculated for the period for which is remained unpaid, after deducting from it, any amount.
8 CJ & JAK, J C.R.P.No.1602 of 2024
(a) paid as tax, to a local authority, in respect of the property;
(b) paid to the plaintiff under written
acknowledgment; and
(c) deposited into the Court, in any
proceedings, in relation to the said
property."
12. Section 15 of the 2015 Act provides for transfer of pending cases. Whereas Section 16 of the 2015 Act deals with amendments to the provisions of CPC in its application to commercial disputes. Section 16 of the 2015 Act is extracted below for the facility of reference.
"16. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes.- (1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.
(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value.
(3) Where any provision of any rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail."
9 CJ & JAK, J C.R.P.No.1602 of 2024
13. With respect to Case Management Hearing, Order XVA of CPC deals with its application to commercial disputes of Specified Value. Rules 1 and 2 of Order XVA of CPC read as under:
"1. First Case Management Hearing:- The Court shall hold the First Case Management Hearing, not later than four weeks from the date of filing of affidavit of admission or denial of documents by all parties to the suit.
2. Orders to be passed in a Case Management Hearing:-
In a Case Management Hearing, after hearing the parties, and once it finds that there are issues of fact and law which require to be tried, the Court may pass an order-
(a) framing the issues between the parties in accordance with Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) after examining pleadings, documents and documents produced before it, and on examination conducted by the Court under Rule 2 of Order X, if required;
(b) listing witnesses to be examined by the parties;
(c) fixing the date by which affidavit of evidence to be filed by parties;
(d) fixing the date on which evidence of the witnesses of the parties to be recorded;
(e) fixing the date by which written arguments are to be filed before the Court by the parties;
(f) fixing the date on which oral arguments are to be heard by the Court; and
(g) setting time limits for parties and their advocates to address oral arguments."
10 CJ & JAK, J C.R.P.No.1602 of 2024
14. Thus, the provisions of CPC shall in their application in a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner specified in the Schedule. Section 16(3) of the 2015 Act mandates that where any provision of any rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to CPC by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of CPC, as amended by the 2015 Act, the provisions of CPC as amended by the 2015 Act shall prevail. From a perusal of the Schedule to the 2015 Act, it is evident that the provisions of Order XVA of CPC have not been amended in any manner. Therefore, the provisions of Order XVA of CPC as amended by the State Legislature apply to a proceeding before the Commercial Court. The amendment brought about in the 2015 Act pertains to case management. Thus, the provisions of Order XVA of CPC and Order XVA of CPC as made applicable to the 2015 Act operate in different fields and can coexist. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that the provisions of Order XVA of CPC, as amended by the State Legislature, are applicable to the proceeding before the 11 CJ & JAK, J C.R.P.No.1602 of 2024 Commercial Court. Therefore, the contention that the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Commercial Court is without jurisdiction cannot be sustained.
15. Admittedly, a registered lease deed was executed between the parties on 12.01.2015 and on expiry of the lease period mentioned therein, an unregistered lease deed dated 02.05.2018 was executed between the parties. The Commercial Court on the basis of material available on record has recorded following finding of fact about the arrears of rent from April, 2021, to October, 2021, which is extracted below for the facility of reference.
"23.............Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled for a direction to direct the respondent/defendant to pay the rents from 01st April, 2021 to 31st October, 2021 @ Rs.15,62,795/- per month amounting to Rs.1,20,88,209/- to the petitioners and also direct the respondent to continue to pay the future rents on every 5th of English calendar month till the disposal of the suit, failing which the defence of the respondent will be struck off. Accordingly, this point is answered."
16. The scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is well delineated and the Supreme Court 12 CJ & JAK, J C.R.P.No.1602 of 2024 in Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel 2 has held that the High Court cannot act as a Court of appeal and reappreciate and reweigh the evidence and should not substitute its opinion. Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid decision is extracted below for the facility of reference:
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order [Prakash Chand Goel v. Garment Craft, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11943] is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. [Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar, (2010) 1 SCC 217 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 69] The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is 2 (2022) 4 SCC 181
13 CJ & JAK, J C.R.P.No.1602 of 2024 axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice."
17. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Commercial Court neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any infirmity apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
18. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the time for depositing the arrears of rent be extended for a period of three (3) months.
19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant two (2) months' time to the petitioner from today i.e., up to 15.09.2024 to deposit the arrears of rent as directed by the Commercial Court. Needless to state that in case the petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within the said time limit, the defence of the petitioner shall be struck off.
14 CJ & JAK, J C.R.P.No.1602 of 2024
20. To the aforesaid extent, the order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Commercial Court is modified.
21. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J 15th JULY, 2024.
kvni