THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.21 of 2022
ORDER:-
The respondents herein had filed O.S.No.135 of 2020 in
the Court of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Visakhapatnam, for evicting the petitioner from the suit
schedule property on the ground that the petitioner, who was
their tenant, had not been paying the rents due to them. The
petitioner had filed a written statement in March, 2021 taking
the plea that though he had initially entered the premises as a
tenant, the said status changed on account of the fact that
there was an agreement between the petitioner and the
respondents for sale of the schedule property to the petitioner
herein, by way of an understanding arrived at in July, 2018.
The petitioner took the defense that on account of this
agreement of sale, no further rent was required to be paid and
to an understood between the parties that no rent would be
paid.
2. After filing of the written statement, the
respondents herein moved I.A.No.115 of 2021 contending that
the petitioner was in arrears of payment of rent to a tune of
Rs.10,39,511/- as on 30.09.2020 and for a direction to pay
the said arrears with future rent at the rate of Rs.34,546/- per
month. The respondents sought a direction to the petitioner
herein to pay the above arrears along with damages/rent for 2
use and occupation from 01.10.2020 till disposal of the suit
with enhancement of 10% per annum.
3. The petitioner filed a counter essentially setting
out the defense raised in the written statement along with
statement showing that he had in fact paid a sum of
Rs.56,31,169/- to the respondents herein under various
heads of account. The petitioner had also filed written
arguments in which the plea of sale of the property to the
petitioner was reiterated.
4. The trial Court after hearing both sides was
pleased to allow I.A.No.115 of 2021, by way of an order dated
23.11.2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has
moved the present civil revision petition before this Court.
5. The trial Court held that, the petitioner, except
making the statement of an agreement of sale and payment of
various amounts of money to the respondents, had not placed
any material or evidence before the Court to accept such a
contention. The trial Court took a further view that in the
absence of any material or evidence, the contentions of the
petitioner cannot be given any credence and accordingly,
rejected the said contention. The trial Court also held that
since the petitioner did not deny the default in payment of
rentals, arrears of rentals to the petitioners and payment of
damages for use and occupation of schedule property, the
petitioner would be liable to pay the same and accordingly, 3
directed that the petitioner deposit arrears of rent of
Rs.10,39,511/- on or before 01.12.2021.
6. Sri G.Ram Gopal learned counsel, appearing for
the petitioner would contend that the said order of the trial
Court is ex facie illegal as the trial Court without looking into
any of the details relating to the arrears, had simply accepted
the quantum of arrears while passing the order under
revision. She relied upon a judgment of the erstwhile High
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Sunil Sarogi vs.
A.Sravanthi1. In this judgment, a petition had been moved by
the land lady under Order 15-A of C.P.C. for a direction to the
tenant to pay a certain amount as arrears of rent without
giving any details as to the calculation of the said rent. This
application was allowed by the trial Court and the High Court
took the view that the trial Court could not have allowed the
appeal with a direction to the tenant to pay the arrears as
claimed by the land lord without making any effort to
ascertain as to how this amount was payable to the
respondents in that case.
7. Sri S.Subba Reddy learned counsel, appearing for
the respondents would submit that as there was no denial in
the counter as to the amounts payable to the respondents and
as the respondents had given a detailed working as to how the
amount payable to the respondents had been worked out, the
1 2016 (3) ALT 707 4
said judgment relied upon by the petitioner would not be
applicable to the facts of the present case. He would further
submit that as there was no denial of the quantum of rent
demanded by the respondents in the counter, the said issue is
covered by a judgement of the erstwhile High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the
State of Andhra Pradesh in M.B.Chander and Ors. Vs.
Balakrishna Rao Charitable Trust2.
8. In this case, a direction had been given by the trial
Court under Order XV-A for payment of arrears of rent
claimed by the landlord. This was challenged before the High
Court on the ground that an enquiry is necessary before
determination of the arrears of rent. This contention was
resisted by the land lord on the ground that such an enquiry
would be necessary only where the arrears are disputed and
an enquiry would be necessary for fixing the undisputed
arrears of rent. The court accepted the contention of the
landlord and held that a summary enquiry would be required
only where the tenant pleads that there are no arrears of rent
or where the quantum of rent is disputed.
9. In the present case, as can be seen from the
pleadings of the parties and the orders of the trial Court, the
petitioner herein did not dispute the calculation of rent and
only took the plea that there was an agreement of sale
between the petitioner and the respondents on account of
2 2017 (3) ALD page 68 5
which the petitioner need not to pay rent. Further, the
respondents had also given the calculation of the rent payable
to the respondents and the arrears of rent payable to the
respondents. In these circumstances, it must be held that
further enquiry as to the arrears of rent payable by the
petitioner does not arise.
10. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. However, the findings of this order shall not be
taken into account at the time of final disposal of the suit and
it shall be open to the petitioner to make good his plea of an
agreement of sale between the petitioner and the respondents
by adducing such evidence as is available to the petitioner.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil
Revision Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 01.02.2022 RJS 6
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.21 of 2022
Date : 01.02.2022
RJS 7
