Telangana High Court

Late Satyanarayan Gupta vs Mohd Naseeruddin on 20 January, 2022

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan

                 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                            C.R.P.NO.1799 OF 2021

                                   ORDER

Heard Mr. J.C. Francis Venkatesham, learned counsel for the petitioners

and Ms. Manjari S.Ganu, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the

order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at

Hyderabad in I.A.No.231 of 2021 in O.S.No.2116 of 2017.

3. Be it stated that respondent herein, as the plaintiff, has instituted the

related suit being O.S.No.2116 of 2017 seeking a decree for eviction of the

defendant - K.Satyanarayana Gupta from the suit schedule property and also

for mesne profits for use and occupation of the suit schedule property from

April 2017 onwards.

4. Defendant has filed written statement in the suit.

5. It may be mentioned that defendant - K.Satyanarayana Gupta had

expired and he is represented by his legal heirs, who are the petitioners herein.

6. Plaintiff as the petitioner, filed the Interlocutory Application in the

pending suit under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity

'C.P.C.' hereinafter) stating that defendant had not paid rent of the schedule

property since April, 2017 at the rate of Rs.6,000.00 (Rupees six thousand only)

per month. Therefore, a direction was sought for to the defendant (defendants)

to pay the rent from April, 2017 till date at the rate of Rs.6,000.00 per month,

and also to pay the current monthly rent at the aforesaid rate.

7. Defendants 2 and 3 filed counter affidavit to the said interlocutory

application denying the contentions made.

8. By the impugned order dated 22.09.2021, learned court below was of

the opinion that respondents had failed to pay rent from April, 2017 onwards to

till date. Hence, respondents have been directed to deposit arrears of rent from

April, 2017 to till date at the rate of Rs.6,000.00 per month in the court within

sixty days, with the further direction to pay future rent at the rate of

Rs.6,000.00 per month on or before 7th day of every month.

9. This revision petition challenging the aforesaid order has been filed on

the following grounds:

"1. It is submitted that the court ought to have seen that it had no jurisdiction to accord the relief as prayed by the respondent landlord since the period of arrears is more than three years and under the statute of limitation, it is barred, as such the order passed by the court below is unsustainable.

2. The petitioners herein have taken out a defence that there are deposits with landlord for an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- and in the circumstances the court ought not have passed the orders since the very purpose of creating a security deposit is for that purpose.

3. The judgment and decree of the lower court is illegal, contrary to law and facts, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case."

10. From the above it is seen that the principal contention of the

petitioners is that learned court below could not have traversed beyond the

period of three years to issue direction for payment of arrears of rent.

11. To appreciate the above, we may advert to Order XV-A of CPC, which

has been inserted by way of amendment in the State of Andhra Pradesh,

adapted in the State of Telangana. Rules 1 and 2 of Order XV-A read as follows:

"(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 that due 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) Whether 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."

12. On carefully going through the aforesaid provision, we do not find

any embargo on the court to limit its exercise to the preceding three years.

13. Insofar the other contention of the petitioners is concerned, that

learned court below had failed to take into consideration deposit of

Rs.1,95,000.00 (Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand only), with the landlord,

we may advert to the relevant portion of the impugned order. After considering

the rival contentions, court below framed the following issue for consideration:

"Whether the petitioner herein is entitled for the arrears of rent from April 2017 till date @ Rs.6,000/- per month as prayed for from the respondents herein?"

14. The above point was answered by the learned court below in the

following manner:

"5. The petitioner herein contends that the respondents have failed to pay the rents from April, 2017, however the same is denied by the respondents herein in their counter and respondents contended that they have paid rents through demand draft for the month of March, 2017 and that from April 2017 to August, 2017 the respondents have paid rent through bankers cheque and thereafter paid rents to the petitioner in cash till December, 2018. However the respondents herein have not filed any documentary evidence to show that they have paid rents to the petitioner herein till the month of December, 2018. Except for the averments in the counter there is no other evidence on record to show that the rents were paid till the month of December, 2018 by the father of the respondents. Further there is no dispute with regard to the quantum of rent and both the petitioner and the respondents have agreed that the quantum of rent @ is Rs.6000/- per month. However there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the respondents have paid rent till the month of December, 2017 and in the absence of any such documentary evidence, this court is of the view that the respondents have not paid rents from April 2017 to till date. The court only looks into documentary evidence and not the averments made in the counter.

6. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the respondents have failed to pay the rents from April 2017 to till date. The respondents are therefore directed to deposit the arrears of rent from April, 2017 to till date @ Rs.6000/- per month into the court within a period of 60 days from the date of the order and is also directed to pay future rent @ Rs.6,000/- per month on or before seventh of every month.