Sereddy Chenchi Reddy vs M/S. Hotel Sarovar
2023 Latest Caselaw 3143 AP

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.635 of 2022

   Sereddy Chenchi Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Hindu, aged about
   45 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No.2-14-121/N, 6th line
   Syamala Nagar, Guntur.
                                    ... Petitioner/Plaintiff No.1

                                 Versus

   M/s. Hotel Sarovar, Rep. by its Partner Syed Aziz, S/o Khasi,
   Muslim, aged about 53 years, Opp: R.T.C. Bus Stand, Guntur
   and three others.
                            ... Respondents/Defendant Nos.1 to 3
                                               and Plaintiff No.2


Counsel for the petitioner                : Sri A.R.Srinivas Murthi and
                                            Sri A. Sai Rohit
Counsel for respondents                   : Sri A. Venkata Durga Rao and
                                            Sri Eerla Satheesh Kumar


                                ORDER

Plaintiff No.1 in the suit filed above revision against order,

dated 03.03.2022 in O.S.No.279 of 2021 on the file of learned III

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2. The averments, in brief, in the plaint are that defendant

No.1 firm is the owner of property bearing door No.13-8-187

admeasuring 832 square yards of site along with ground, first,

second and third floors. Defendant No.1 firm leased out first,

second and third floors along with steps on the ground floor as

also reception counter along with lavatories and bathrooms and

current connections to the plaintiffs, on 27.05.2015 for a period Page 2 of 12 SRS,J CRP No.635 of 2022

of six years from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2021. Rent for three years

i.e. from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2021 is Rs.60,000/- and from

01.04.2023 onwards, Rs.78,000/- per month. The rent is

payable on the fifth of every succeeding month. Plaintiffs took

plaint schedule property on lease and have been running Sri

Tirumala Hotel Sarovar Lodge. Plaintiffs paid Rs.10,00,000/- to

defendant No.1 as refundable advance amount without interest

at the time of taking property on lease. Defendants represented

that, plaintiffs can continue as lessees even after expiry of lease

with same terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed. In

the lease deed, a condition was also incorporated regarding

damages. Plaintiffs invested huge amounts. Lease deed dated

27.05.2015 was registered as document No.5301 of 2015.

Plaintiffs have been regularly paying rent through NEFT/RTGS

and the present rent payable is Rs.78,000/- per month

including TDS. Defendants violated their assurance to continue

plaintiffs as tenants and intended to evict plaintiffs from the

plaint schedule property. Plaintiffs issued registered legal notice

on 19.11.2020 requesting defendants to enter fresh lease for a

period of five years. Defendants issued reply notice with false

allegations. Subsequently, there were negotiations in the

presence of Suravarapu Venkata Reddy and Ambati Srinivas

Reddy. There was a compromise to extend the lease orally.

Plaintiffs issued notice requesting the defendants not to take Page 3 of 12 SRS,J CRP No.635 of 2022

any coercive steps against them. With these averments, the suit

was filed for perpetual injunction.

3. Defendant No.3 filed written statement and counter claim.

It was contended inter alia that plaintiffs approached the

defendants with an intention to run Tirumala Hotel Sarovar

Lodge in the plaint schedule property. Accordingly registered

lease deed was executed on 27.05.2015. As per the terms of the

lease deed, rent was fixed at Rs.60,000/- per month for first

three years and thereafter at Rs.78,000/- per month. Power

consumption charges are to be paid by the plaintiffs and

property tax is to be paid by defendant No.1. Plaintiffs also paid

Rs.10,00,000/- as refundable deposit. As per the terms and

conditions of lease deed, if possession of the plaint schedule

property is not delivered after expiry of the lease, plaintiffs will

be treated as trespassers and defendants are entitled to claim

Rs.25,000/- per day towards damages, from the plaintiffs.

4. Plaintiffs issued legal notice, dated 19.11.2020 requesting

the defendants to extend the lease period for five years more.

Defendants got issued registered reply notice, dated 24.11.2020.

Plaintiffs again got issued legal notice dated 04.03.2021

contending about oral understanding. Defendants got issued

reply notice, dated 08.03.2021. Plaintiffs, by suppressing reply

notice, dated 08.03.2021, approached the Court with false Page 4 of 12 SRS,J CRP No.635 of 2022

allegations. As per recitals of registered lease deed, lease was

determined on 31.03.2021 and plaintiffs shall deliver vacant

possession. Counter claim was filed seeking eviction of plaintiffs

and delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule

property to the defendants.

5. Counter claim was valued at Rs.78,000/- per month and

accordingly Court Fee was paid.

6. Pending the suit, defendants filed I.A.No.203 of 2021

under Order XV-A read with Section 151 of CPC to direct the

plaintiffs to pay agreed amount of damages at the rate of

Rs.25,000/- per day from 01.04.2021 otherwise to strike off the

defence of the respondents/plaintiffs.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the

averments of the counter claim are reiterated.

8. Plaintiff No.2 filed counter and opposed the application.

9. Trial Court by order, dated 03.03.2022 allowed the

application and directed plaintiffs to deposit Rs.25,000/- per

day towards damages for use and occupation of plaint schedule

property from 01.04.2021 till the date of passing of order, within

one month from the said date and continue to deposit

Rs.25,000/- per day, pending the suit. For compliance, the suit Page 5 of 12 SRS,J CRP No.635 of 2022

was adjourned to 30.03.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the

present revision is filed.

10. Heard Sri Sai Rohit, learned counsel representing Sri A.R.

Srinivas Murthy, learned for the petitioner and Sri A. Venkta

Durga Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

order passed by the trial Court is in violation of Order XV-A of

CPC. He would also submit that plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint

about oral understanding. He would also submit that Court

below failed to understand difference between rent and

damages. He would also submit that plaintiff No.2 colluded with

defendants and hence I.A.No.332 of 2021 was filed to transpose

him as defendant No.4. Pending the said application, Court

below passed the above order.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3

would contend that as per lease deed, plaintiffs must vacate the

premises by 31.03.2021. The Lease deed further contains clause

No.6 that beyond 31.03.2021, plaintiffs will be treated as

trespassers and they are liable to pay Rs.25,000/- per day, to

the owners and landlords, towards damages from 01.04.2021.

13. The point for consideration is whether order dated

03.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.203 of 2021 in O.S.No.279 of 2021 Page 6 of 12 SRS,J CRP No.635 of 2022

on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur,

is legally sustainable?

14. The facts referred to supra would manifest that suit

O.S.No.279 of 2021 was filed for perpetual injunction by the

plaintiffs. Defendant No. 3 filed written statement along with

counter claim. Counter claim was valued at Rs.9,36,000/- and

Court Fee was paid accordingly. Thus, monthly rent pleaded by

the defendants, in the counter claim is Rs.78,000/-.

15. No doubt, as per the lease agreement, the lease period

expired on 31.03.2021. The lease agreement was not marked as

exhibit in I.A.No.203 of 2021. However, as seen from the order

of the Court below, there is an observation that there is no

specific clause for renewal of lease period after expiry of six

years and the lease deed, in fact, contains clause for damages at

the rate of Rs.25,000/- per day, after expiry of the lease. It is

appropriate to extract Order XV-A of CPC, which reads thus:

"(1) In a suit for recovery of possession, on termination of lease, or licence, with or without a 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 the 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 Page 7 of 12 SRS,J CRP No.635 of 2022

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 same, 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 the reason 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 of for which is remained unpaid, after deducting from it, any amount.

        a.     ---
        b.     ----
        c.     -----"

16. Thus, from a careful perusal of Order XV-A of CPC, it is

clear that Order XV-A of CPC manifests that in a suit for

recovery of possession on termination of lease or license, with or

without prayer for recovery of arrears of rent or license fee, the

defendant while filing written statement shall deposit the Page 8 of 12 SRS,J CRP No.635 of 2022

amount representing the undisputed arrears calculated upto

that date into the Court and shall continue to deposit the said

amount. Where there is such a dispute regarding arrears of rent

or license fee, the Court is competent to pass the order after

affording opportunity to both parties. Explanation to Order XV-

A of CPC clarifies that the amount representing undisputed

arrears shall mean sum of rent, or license fee calculated for the

period for which it remained unpaid after deducting from it any

amount paid towards tax in respect of property and the amount

paid to the plaintiffs under written acknowledgment and

deposited into the Court, in any proceedings in relation to the

said property.

17. In the case on hand, plaintiffs pleaded oral compromise

and defendants denied the same. Defendants filed the counter

claim and valued the counter claim, at the rate of Rs.78,000/-

per month and paid Court fee accordingly. When

defendants/landlords valued counter claim at the rate of

Rs.78,000/- per month, whether Trial Court is justified in

directing the plaintiffs to deposit damages of Rs.25,000/- per

day?

18. The answer to the question is an emphatic No. Under

Order XV-A CPC the Court must direct the tenant to deposit

arrears of rent and continue to deposit the rent. The distinction Page 9 of 12 SRS,J CRP No.635 of 2022

between rent and damages is, rent is a consideration paid for

right to use and possess property. In distinction if a tenant

continues to occupy the premises after termination of tenancy,

the landlord is entitled to claim damages for use and

occupation. Rent being periodic payments for use and

occupation of the property, damages are for a lease or injury

suffered by landlord due to wrongful act of tenant.

19. Whether the landlord is entitled to damages or not will be

decided after the evidence is let in by the parties. If the Court

comes to conclusion that the plea of plaintiff qua oral

compromise is false, Court will pass necessary orders as to

damages. The quantum of damage will be ascertained on

making an application and after letting evidence. The Clause

contained in the registered lease deed dated 27.05.2015

regarding damages cannot be relied for the purpose of Order

XV-A of CPC.

20. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner

would contend that an amount of Rs.78,000/- is being paid

regularly and the same is not disputed by learned counsel for

respondent Nos.1 to 3. Explanation to Order XV-A of CPC also

clarifies that it is arrears of amount that has to be deposited by

the tenant. In case of dispute, Court can also determine the

rent. The concept of damages, in the considered opinion of the Page 10 of 12 SRS,J CRP No.635 of 2022

Court is un-known to Order XV-A of CPC. The Trial Court, in

fact, have noticed Order XV-A of CPC, however, influenced or

swayed away by clause 6 contained in the registered lease deed,

dated 27.05.2015 and directed the plaintiffs/respondents to

deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- per day towards use and

occupation from 01.04.2021 and imposed further conditions.

21. In view of the discussion supra, the order of the trial

Court is not in conformity with Order XV-A of CPC and in fact is

contrary to Order XV-A. Order of trial Court, if allowed to

continue, results in manifest injustice.

22. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power

of superintendence by the High Court over all Subordinate

Courts and Tribunals. The power of superintendence

conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 is not

confined to administrative superintendence only, but

includes the power of judicial review. The duty of this Court

is to see that the Courts shall not exceed its power that is

conferred on it or exercise power based on extraneous

material to pass any order and to keep the subordinate

courts within its bounds of jurisdiction.

23. In view of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition

is allowed. Order dated 03.03.2022 in I.A.No.203 of 2022 in Page 11 of 12 SRS,J CRP No.635 of 2022

O.S.NO.279 of 2021 is set aside. However, this order shall not

come in the way of the trial Court in passing appropriate orders

in case of plaintiffs' failure to deposit the rent or any application

being filed by landlords in relation to rents pending the suit.

24. Since pleadings are completed, in the peculiar facts and

circumstances, trial Court shall dispose of the suit itself as

expeditiously as possible within a period of 8 months. Plaintiffs

in the suit shall cooperate to expedite disposal of the suit and

also file list of witnesses. If the plaintiffs intend to drag the suit

by filing unnecessary interlocutory applications, the trial court

shall pass appropriate orders. No costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

                                        __________________________
                                         SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Date : 14.06.2023
ikn
 Page 12 of 12                                SRS,J
                                             CRP No.635 of 2022




         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI




            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.635 of 2022

                       Date: 14.06.2023

ikn