Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr. Medikonda Venkateswara Rao vs Marapu Suresh Naidu, on 18 June, 2024
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
::1::
APHC010579312023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [2605]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3131/2023
Between:
Dr. Medikonda Venkateswara Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
Marapu Suresh Naidu ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PARDHA SARADHI A V
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SESHU KUMAR NALI
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Challenge in this C.R.P. is to the order dated 21.08.2023 in
I.A.No215/2022 in O.S.No.275/2021 passed by learned VII Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Visakhapatnam dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff
under Order XV(A) r/w 151 CPC praying the Court to direct the respondent/
defendant to pay admitted monthly rents due from 01.02.2021 to 28.02.2022 @
Rs.1,80,000/- per month.
::2::
2. The factual matrix of the case which led to file the instant C.R.P. is thus:
(a) The petitioner filed the suit for eviction of respondent from the suit
schedule property and to deliver the vacant possession of the same and direct
the respondent to pay Rs.6,00,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit
till the date of handing over the vacant possession to the petitioner.
(b) According to the petitioner, the respondent is his tenant and he has
taken the suit schedule property on lease for running the hospital by name
Adithya Multi Care Hospital. He was inducted tenancy in the year 2012. The
agreed rent was Rs.2,00,000/- per month and the respondent has paid rents only
Rs.18,000/- till 11.11.2020. Subsequently, both parties entered into unregistered
lease deeds dated 29.03.2012, 01.03.2013, 10.10.2014, 02.11.2015, 24.10.2016,
06.12.2018 and 12.12.2019. The original lease period was expired on
11.11.2020 and the respondent cleared the monthly rent @ Rs.1,80,000/- till
31.01.2021. The petitioner issued Quit Notice dated 04.09.2018 for which the
respondent issued reply notice. Again the petitioner issued Quit Notice on
24.07.2020 but the respondent did not respond. Thereafter, on 31.07.2020 the
respondent has sent a reply notice along with demand draft for Rs.1,62,000/-
which was given credit as part payment of rental arrears, but not as monthly
installments. The petitioner claimed that he never offered the suit schedule
property to sell to respondent or anybody. Finally, the petitioner issued Quit
Notice dated 28.06.2021 to vacate the plaint schedule property and to pay
arrears of enhanced rents, is of no use.
(c) Respondent opposed the plaintiff's case, his version is that he is the
Managing Director of M/s Adithya Multi Care Hospital and he entered into an
agreement of sale with the plaintiff and paid an advance amount of
Rs.25,00,000/- and thereafter paid equated monthly installments regularly.
However, by twisting the facts, the plaintiff filed the case. There is no landlord
::3::
and tenant relationship between the parties. The plaintiff is obligated to receive
the balance sale consideration by executing registered sale deed in favour of the
respondent. However, in order to escape from his legal liability, the plaintiff filed
the present suit. The petition is not maintainable under Order XV(A) CPC
because the defendant denied the landlord and tenant relationship.
(e) The trial court having considered the respective pleas of the parties and
applying the same to order XV(A) CPC and also considering the earlier suits
pending between the parties, has held that the defendant is seriously disputing
the quantum of arrears as well as the landlord and tenant relationship between
the parties. The trial court has held that it is the specific contention of the
defendant that he has purchased the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff
for Rs.5,25,00,000/- and the plaintiff made a proposal that the sale consideration
has to be paid by way of monthly installments along with future interest and thus
the total amount comes approximately to rupees 10 crores over a period of 220
months and the payments were made from January, 2018. The trial court thus
held that there is a serious dispute regarding the jural relationship of landlord and
tenant and as the jural relationship itself is the issue, it has to be decided after
full-fledged trial and therefore, petitioner cannot seek for a direction to the
respondent under Order XV(A) CPC to deposit arrears of alleged rent. The trial
court accordingly dismissed the petition.
Hence, the C.R.P.
3. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner Sri A.V.Pardharsaradhi
and learned counsel for respondent Sri N.Sheshu Kumar.
4. While severely fulminating the order of the trial court, learned counsel for
petitioner Sri A.V.Pardhasaradhi would submit that there is no dispute with
regard to the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the
trial court misunderstood the said relationship and unduly dismissed the petition.
::4::
Learned counsel placed reliance on Kotla Parameshwari and another v.
K.Perumallu and others1.
5. Per contra, while supporting the impugned order, learned counsel for
respondent Sri N.Sheshu Kumar would submit that the trial court has rightly held
that there was a serious dispute regarding the jural relationship of tenancy
between the parties and rightly dismissed the application. He would contend that
the respondent is not a tenant but purchaser under agreement to sell and paid an
advance sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioner and it was agreed
by both the parties that the balance sale consideration including future interest
shall be paid in equal monthly installments for 220 months. As such the petitioner
cannot file petition under Order XV(A) CPC demanding the respondent to deposit
the alleged rents. He vehemently contend that when there is a dispute regarding
the jural relationship, a petition under Order XV(A) CPC cannot be filed by the
petitioner. He placed reliance on Aritakula Satyanarayana Murthy v.
Patchipulusu Naga Suneetha2.
6. The point for consideration is:
Having regard to the respective pleadings, whether tenancy in this case is
an admitted fact or a disputed fact and whether the petitioner can seek a
direction in terms of Order XV(A) CPC for deposit of rents by the respondent?
7. Point: Before embarking upon deciding the point for consideration, it is
germane for me to study XV(A) CPC which reads thus:
"Andhra Pradesh:
(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
2022 (4) ALD 87 (TS)
MANU/AP/0813/2023= 2023:APHC:15971
::5::
the undisputed arrears, calculated up to 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.
(2) 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 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 arrears" shall mean the sum of rent, or licence fee,
calculated for the period, for which it remained unpaid, after
deducting from it, any amount.
(a) paid as tax, to a local authority, in respect of the property.
(b) paid to the plaintiff underwritten acknowledgement; and
(c) deposited into the court, in any proceedings, in relation to the said
property."
8. A punctilious study of the above provision would show that, as per sub-rule
(1) of Order XV(A) in a suit for recovery of possession of an immovable property
on termination of the lease or license fee, the defendant's primary duty is that
while filing his written statement in the said suit, he shall deposit amount
representing "undisputed arrears" calculated upto the date while filing the written
statement. Up to the date meaning thereby, up to the date of filing written
statement 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.
::6::
(a) Then as per sub-rule (2), if the defendant pleads in the written
statement that there are no arrears of rent or license fee due, then it shall be
competent for the court to pass order in that regard i.e., the existence or non-
existence of the arrears of the rent and in its enquiry, if it is found that any
amount if found due, then the defendant shall be under obligation to deposit the
same within the time stipulated by the court and continue to deposit till disposal
of the suit. The court has power to extend the stipulated time for the reasons
recorded.
(b) It should be noted that the term "the amount representing the
undisputed arrears" has been explained in this rule which shall mean the sum of
rent, or license fee, calculated for the period, for which it remained unpaid, after
deducting from it, the relevant amounts noted in the explanation.
(c) Thus, in substance the Order XV(A) explicates that in a suit for
recovery for an immovable property whether the plaintiff prays for recovery of
arrears of rent or not, the defendant is obligated to deposit the admitted
undisputed arrears at the time of filing of the written statement to show his
bonafides to contest the suit. He is further obligated to deposit the future rent
accrued within one week from the date of which it becomes due till disposal of
the suit. However, if he disputes in the written statement that there are no arrears
of rent or license fee, then at the option of petitioner, the trial court shall conduct
an enquiry to know whether there exist any arrears of rent or license and
depending upon finding of such enquiry, the court shall direct the defendant to
deposit the arrears of amount found due. If the defendant commits default in
making the deposits as aforesaid, the court shall then strike off the defense.
(d) Therefore, for applicability of Order XV(A) at the first instance there
shall be admission on the part of the defendant as to the existence of arrears of
rents or license in which case, he shall deposit the said arrears of rent or license
::7::
fee along with written statement and shall continue to deposit the subsequent
rents within the time stipulated. On the other hand, if he disputes that there are
no arrears of rents or license fee, the duty will be cast on the trial court to
conduct enquiry to find out whether indeed there exist any arrears of rent or
license fee and if its finding is in a positive manner, then it shall direct the
defendant to deposit such arrears of rents within the time given by it and on his
failure, the trial court can strike off his defense.
(e) Thus, on the analysis of the above provision, it is needless to
emphasize that this provision would apply only when the arrears of rent is either
admitted or judicially determined. Either situation would arise only when the jural
relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted but not otherwise.
9. With the above jurisprudence, when the case on hand is scrutinized, while
it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent is only a tenant and he
committed default and thereby arrears of rents accrued which he is liable to
deposit and therefore a direction under Order XV(A) CPC is appropriate, in
oppugnation, respondent strongly denies the landlord and tenant relationship and
contends that the jural relationship that exist between the parties is only as a
vendor and vendee, in as much as, the petitioner agreed to sell the suit schedule
property to the respondent for Rs.5,25,00,000/- and he paid an advance of
Rs.25,00,000/- and the parties agreed that the balance and accrued interest shall
be paid by the respondent in 220 equal monthly installments which commences
from January, 2018. Thus, he denies tenancy and sets up a plea of purchase.
Obviously, the respective pleas have to be evaluated on the strength of the
evidence placed before the trial court to come to a conclusion. Since, primarily
there is no admission of the tenancy, the question of applicability of order XV(A)
CPC in this case does not arise. The trial court rightly held that the petition is not
maintainable since the jural relationship of tenancy was itself an issue before it.
In Aritakula Satyanarayana Murthy's case (supra 2) case relied upon by the
::8::
respondent, in similar circumstances when the petitioner therein denied the
relationship of tenancy, the learned Judge held that Order XV(A) CPC has no
application. Learned Judge observed that:
"7. On perusal of the both side contentions, admittedly, there is a serious
dispute about the relationship of landlord and tenant and also title
between both the parties. Though the respondent pleaded that the 1st
petitioner is her tenant, nothing is placed on record to substantiate it.
The denial of the 1st petitioner in this behalf is unchallenged. Even if the
non-payment of rent is for a considerable period, it is essential that the
respondent has to file proof that the 1st petitioner paid rents for the two
months initially. Moreover, the respondent did not issue any notice to the
1st petitioner about pending of arrears of rent. The question that whether
the 1st petitioner acquired title or the respondent acquired title over the
schedule property, needs to be examined in the suit."
10. So far as, the judgment in Kotla Parameshwari's case (supra 1) relied
upon by the petitioner is concerned, in that case, the jural relationship of landlord
and tenant was an admitted fact. As such the said decision is of no avail to the
petitioner herein.
11. Accordingly, this C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any in this C.R.P. shall
stand closed.
_______________________
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,J
Dated: 18.06.2024
NNN
::9::
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3131/2023
18.06.2024
NNN
