Abdul Khalid vs A Ravindra Kumar
2025 Latest Caselaw 3485 Tel

Telangana High Court

Abdul Khalid vs A Ravindra Kumar on 27 March, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

      THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1026 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-respondent-

defendant aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.163 of

2018 in O.S.No.16 of 2018 by the learned III Additional District Judge,

Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District.

2. The respondent - plaintiff filed O.S. No.16 of 2018 for eviction and

recovery of arrears of rent to an amount of Rs.22,21,890/- from 01.03.2015 to

01.07.2018. The suit schedule property is stated to be a building, in which a

restaurant by name New Taj Palace was being run along with two shops situated

in ground floor of the said restaurant building with two shutters. The rent was

claimed @ Rs.55,400/- per month from 01.03.2015 to 01.03.2018 and

@ Rs.75,830/- per month from 01.03.2018 to 01.07.2018. Along with the said

suit, the respondent - plaintiff filed I.A.No.163 of 2018 under Order XV-A Rule

1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to direct the petitioner - respondent -

defendant to pay an amount of Rs.22,21,890/- towards arrears of rent. Along

with the petition, the respondent - plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that he

entered into a lease agreement with the respondent - defendant on 01.01.2012

for leasing the restaurant by name New Taj Palace restaurant and on 01.03.2012

Dr.GRR, J crp_1026_2019

for leasing the two shops in the ground floor for a period of three years for an

amount of Rs.5,000/- per month and to enhance the rent @ 36 % per annum on

renewal of the said agreements. He further submitted that the lease period

expired on 01.01.2015. He requested the respondent-defendant to vacate the

premises. But the respondent - defendant postponed the same and was not

paying the rents. As the respondent-defendant was selling tobacco products as

against the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement and was not paying

the enhanced rents from the year 2015 as per the original agreement, an FIR

was registered by Undavalli Police vide FIR No.116 of 2018 dated 20.06.2018

on the complaint given by him about his illegal business of selling tobacco

products against the respondent - defendant under Sections 188, 273 IPC and

Section 20(2) of CTPTARTCPSD, and the respondent - defendant was arrested

and produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur. He also

made a request to the electrical authorities to disconnect the power supply.

Legal notice was issued to the respondent - defendant calling upon to vacate the

suit schedule premises by 31.07.2018. But the respondent - defendant did not

come forward to vacate the schedule premises or renewal of the lease deed or to

pay the enhanced rent @ Rs.75,830/- per month. The respondent - defendant

deposited one month rent into his account for the month of July, 2018 on

04.08.2018. The respondent - defendant filed W.P.No.25386 of 2018 on

20.07.2018 against the landlord - plaintiff and the electrical authorities seeking

Dr.GRR, J crp_1026_2019

restoration of power supply, which was disconnected on 07.07.2018, the High

Court was not inclined to pass any interim orders, but admitted the Writ

Petition. The respondent - defendant being the tenant of the suit premises was

bound to pay rent till eviction of property. As per Order XV Rule 2, the

respondent - defendant was under obligation to deposit the arrears of rent within

the time stipulated by the Court and if the respondent - defendant committed

default in making the deposits, as ordered by the Court, the Court should strike

off the defence and on failure of the respondent - defendant to comply the said

order, prayed to forfeit the right of the respondent - defendant to contest the

matter.

3. The respondent - defendant filed counter admitting the ownership of the

plaintiff over the suit schedule property and entering into an agreement with the

plaintiff for running the hotel business on 06.07.2011 at the rent of Rs.30,000/-

per month and that the plaintiff received an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- towards

advance and another agreement was executed on 01.01.2012 in respect of two

shops for a period of three years and received an amount of Rs.30,000/- per

month towards rent for a period of six months and that he agreed to continue

tenancy by way of enhancing the rent at 36% per annum. However, he

contended that he had never violated the terms mentioned in the agreement and

was paying the agreed rents to the plaintiff within first week of every month

under proper receipts without fail. The plaintiff never demanded him to vacate

Dr.GRR, J crp_1026_2019

the suit schedule premises. On the evil advice of neighboring business holder,

the petitioner - plaintiff lodged a false report before the Station House Officer

(for short "SHO") of PS Undavalli. The respondent - defendant was never

selling the prohibited products at any point of time. After conducting enquiry,

the police personal gave a report that the respondent - defendant was not selling

the tobacco products in the suit schedule premises shops. The petitioner -

plaintiff sent a false application to electrical authorities to disconnect the power

supply to the premises with an intention to pressurize the respondent -

defendant to vacate the premises illegally, even though the respondent -

defendant had not committed any mistake in payment of electricity bills. He

also stated that he was paying rents every month regularly without any delay

under proper receipts and that he filed the original receipts pertaining to the

payment of rents to the respondent - petitioner to prove his bonafides. He also

stated that he received the legal notice issued by the petitioner - plaintiff dated

21.07.2018 and that he gave a suitable reply on 30.07.2018 by mentioning the

real facts. He also paid the electricity bills regularly each and every month

promptly and that he enclosed the electricity bills. He also stated that he was

paying the enhanced monthly rents to the petitioner - plaintiff as agreed by him

in the agreement and that he was having no dues. He stated that he filed Writ

Petition before the Hon'ble High Court to reinstate the power supply and that

the petitioner - plaintiff filed a false criminal case against him to harass him. He

Dr.GRR, J crp_1026_2019

further stated that in collusion with the neighboring hotel management of Baba

Ramdev Daba, the petitioner - plaintiff got closed the drain by filling it with

concrete, due to which the drain was blocked and the respondent - defendant

was suffering lot of inconvenience in conducting his business affairs. He

further stated that the petitioner - plaintiff had given remaining portion of his

building to another person, who opened another hotel in the name and style as

Sri Sai Hotel.

4. The learned III Additional District Judge, Gadwal on considering the

contentions of both the counsel appearing for the parties, allowed the

application filed by the petitioner - plaintiff with costs directing the respondent

- defendant to deposit arrears of rent @ Rs.55,400/- with effect from

01.03.2015 to 01.03.2018, which would come to Rs.19,94,900/- and @

Rs.75,830/- with effect from 01.03.2018 to 01.07.2018, which would come to

Rs.2,27,490/- after deducting one month rent, which was deposited by the

respondent - defendant through online, in total Rs.22,21,890/- within a period of

two (02) months from the date of the order and permitted the petitioner -

plaintiff to withdraw the said amount till further orders.

5. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned III Additional District

Judge, Gadwal, the respondent - defendant preferred this revision.

Dr.GRR, J crp_1026_2019

6. Heard Sri C.Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner - defendant and Sri Challa Sivasankar, learned counsel for the

respondent - plaintiff.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner

was disputing that there was any arrears. He also filed the receipts till

November, 2018. Whether the petitioner / lessee was due any arrears of rent or

not could be decided only in trial. No interim orders could be passed for the

period prior to filing of the suit. The landlord - plaintiff got the power supply

disconnected to the hotel and restrained the petitioner from running the hotel.

The petitioner was unable to use the property. When the petitioner - defendant

was disputing the arrears of rent, no interim order could be passed directing him

to pay arrears of rent.

7.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Order XV-A was

provided only for undisputed arrears, but when the arrears were disputed, no

order could be passed under it and relied upon the judgments of the High Court

of Andhra Pradesh in K.Zakria Shaik v. K.Saleem Basha 1 and Tanmai

Jewels Private Limited v. Sreesaila Kumari 2

8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the order

of the trial court contending that the petitioner was due the above amounts and

LAWS (APH) 2011 6 54

LAWS (APH) 2013 4 85

Dr.GRR, J crp_1026_2019

the trial court on considering the falsity of the case of the petitioner - defendant

with regard to the receipts filed by him observing that the same were incomplete

and that they would not reflect as to who received the said amount, ordered the

petition. There was no illegality in the said order to set aside the same and

prayed to dismiss the revision.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

When the petitioner - defendant - tenant is disputing the arrears of rent, can there be an interim order directing him to pay the amount under Order XV-A of CPC?

10. On a perusal of Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure in its

application to the State of Andhra Pradesh, it reads as follows:

"Order XV-A:

(1) In a suit for recovery of possession, on termination of lease, or license, with or without a prayer for recovery of arrears of rent, or license fee, known with whatever description, the defendant, while filing his written statement, shall deposit the amount, representing 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) Whether the defendant pleads, in the written statement that no arrears of rent or license 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.

Dr.GRR, J crp_1026_2019

Provided that the time stipulated for payment of amount, as aforesaid, may be extended by the Court for reasons to be recovered 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 license 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 under written acknowledgement; and

(c) Deposited into the Court, any proceedings, in relation to the said property."

(emphasis supplied)

11. Thus, as per the above Order, a direction can be given to deposit the

amount representing the undisputed arrears. But, as seen from the pleadings of

the parties, the petitioner - defendant was disputing that there were no arrears

and contended that he was not due any amount and that he paid rents regularly

under proper receipts and also enclosed the photo copies of the receipts.

12. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K.Zakria Shaik v.

K.Saleem Basha (cited supra), observed that:

"The provision under Order XV-A of CPC came into force with effect from 2005. The purpose underlying the provision is to ensure that the owner of the premises leased to the defendant in a suit pays the rents regularly, together with arrears, if any. The word "undisputed" occurring before the word "arrears", assumes significance. If there is a dispute as to the quantum, the Court has to decide the same, duly taking into account, the versions put

Dr.GRR, J crp_1026_2019

forward by the parties. In this regard, slightly different approach is needed in respect of a suit in which recovery of arrears is prayed for, as one of the reliefs on the one hand and a suit for eviction simplicitor on the other hand. If the defendant opposes the claim in the suit, as to arrears, the adjudication thereof must take place after trial. An application under Order 15-A of C.P.C. is not the proper mechanism to recover the suit amount, if seriously disputed by the defendant. Under the garb of seeking relief under that provision, plaintiff in a suit cannot pray for recovery of the entire amount, which incidentally is claimed in the suit itself. In such an event, the suit comes to be virtually decreed to that extent without trial, but through an order under Order 15-A of C.P.C.

If the arrears existed from the date of filing of the suit, a direction can certainly be issued for deposit thereof in an application filed under Rule 15-A of C.P.C. Any direction for deposit of arrears prior to the date of filing of the suit can be issued, only when there is no dispute. If there is divergence of opinion between the parties as to the quantum or liability, the determination thereof has to be relegated to a subsequent stage and a finding has to be given after trial. An exercise contemplated under Order 15-A of C.P.C. is totally inadequate and unsuited for final determination of the arrears of rent for the period anterior to the date of filing of the suit."

13. In the present case also, the plaintiff was claiming for recovery of an

amount of Rs.22,21,890/- towards arrears of rent in the main suit and the

present I.A. is also filed seeking the entire amount, which he was claiming in

the main suit.

14. As observed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the above

case, the suit is virtually decreed to the extent without trial through this Order

XV-A of CPC.

Dr.GRR, J crp_1026_2019

15. The arrears claimed by the respondent - plaintiff are also pertaining to

the period prior to filing of the suit, which were disputed by the defendant.

There was divergence of opinion between the parties as to the liability. As

such, the determination ought to have been relegated to a subsequent stage and

a finding need to be given after trial. The trial court passing orders commenting

on the receipts as incomplete and placing the burden of proof on the parties at

that stage, is unwarranted and is also erroneous.

16. The adjudication as to the disputed arrears need to take place only after

trial. The application under Order XV-A of Code of Civil Procedure is not the

proper mechanism.

17. In Tanmai Jewels Private Limited v. Sreesaila Kumari (cited supra)

also, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that:

"25. A perusal of the provision under Order XV-A of CPC discloses that the Court shall record a finding as to the existence of arrears that too after hearing both the parties and then pass an order on merits. The version of the respondent No.1 on the one hand, and the appellants, on the other, as to the payment of arrears of rents were very much before the Court. Not a word was said in this behalf and straight away the application was ordered."

18. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the above case by referring to its

earlier judgment in K.Zakria Shaik v. K.Saleem Basha (cited supra), held

that:

Dr.GRR, J crp_1026_2019

"An exercise contemplated under Order XV-A of CPC is totally inadequate and unsuited for final determination of the arrears of rent for the period anterior to the date of filing of the suit."

19. As the trial court passed the order in haste without going into the

provision of Order XV-A of CPC, which states that it should be only for

undisputed arrears, but passed the order for the disputed arrears, the order

passed by the trial court is considered as illegal and as such, the same is liable

to be set aside. However, as the revision petitioner - defendant also admitted

that he was paying enhanced rent @ Rs.75,830/- from 01.03.2018, it is

considered fit to direct the same to be paid under Order XV-A of CPC.

20. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order

dated 29.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.163 of 2018 in O.S.No.16 of 2018 by the

learned III Additional District Judge, Gadwal, Mahabubngar District directing

the revision petitioner herein to pay arrears of rent of Rs.22,21,890/- but,

however, the petitioner is directed to deposit the admitted rent of Rs.75,830/-

from the date of filing of the suit till date within a period of two months from

the date of this order, into the suit account and on deposit of the said amount,

the respondent - plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the same. The revision

petitioner herein is further directed to continue to deposit the same monthly rent

till the disposal of the suit and on deposit of the same, the respondent - plaintiff

is permitted to withdraw the same. No order as to costs.

Dr.GRR, J crp_1026_2019

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any,

shall stand closed.

____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J Date: 27th March, 2025 Nsk