Partly allowed

Sadu Badrappa v. M.Ramesh

Telangana HC20 Aug 2010CRP/3243/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an original suit where the tenant was permitted to deposit rent in another suit. The court directed the tenant to deposit rent going forward in the present suit, restricting the other suit's order to the past, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Rent from August 2010 must be deposited in O.S. No. 125 of 2007 by the 10th of every month; previous deposit order restricted to July 2010.

Sadu Badrappa Vs M.Ramesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3243 OF 2010

¶3

Dated:20.08.2010

¶4

Between: Sadu Badrappa .. Petitioner And M.Ramesh .. Respondent

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

Heard Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.538 of 2009 in O.S.No.125 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Siddipet, dated 21.06.2010.

¶8

The said petition was filed by the revision petitioner herein requesting to direct the respondent to pay Rs.4,800/- per month from 01.06.2006 towards rent for the suit schedule property up to 19.09.2007 and Rs.10,000/- per month from 19.09.2007 till the date of eviction. The revision petitioner claimed to have purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 30.05.2006 and the respondent was claimed to be the tenant of the vendor of the revision petitioner. The respondent contested the claim stating that he filed O.S.No.156 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, against the original owner of the suit property and also obtained a temporary injunction pending the suit in I.A.No.554 of 2005. In C.M.A.No.6 of 2006 against the orders of I.A.No.554 of 2005 also, the respondent succeeded and he also gave a reply to the notice issued to him by the revision petitioner under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondent also filed I.A.No.508 of 2008 in O.S.No.156 of 2005 seeking permission to deposit the rent in respect of the suit property, which was accordingly ordered by the trial Court and as the appellate Court clarified in C.M.A.No.6 of 2006 to deposit

¶9

the rent into Court to the credit of that suit, the present request is not tenable.

¶10

The trial Court passed the impugned order observing that in the light of the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, in O.S.No.156 of 2005 permitting the respondent to deposit the rent into Court, the respondent cannot be directed again to deposit the rent in this matter as it will create confusion in the mind of the respondent. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the petition without costs.

¶11

The revision petitioner challenged the said order contending that he was not a party to O.S.No.156 of 2005 and the vendor of the revision petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.156 of 2005, stated before the Court in that matter that he sold the property to the revision petitioner and rents are payable only to the revision petitioner. Any order in I.A.No.508 of 2008 in O.S.No.156 of 2005 cannot bind the revision petitioner without impleading him in the said suit and therefore the respondent has to be directed to deposit the rents to the credit of O.S.No.125 of 2007.

¶12

The point for consideration is whether the respondent has to be directed to deposit the rent in O.S.No.125 of 2007?

¶13

POINT:- It is seen from the material papers that the original owner of the property against whom the respondent herein filed O.S.No.156 of 2005 stated in his counter affidavit in I.A.No.508 of 2008 that he sold the property to the present revision petitioner under registered sale deed dated 30.05.2006 and informed the same to the respondent also and the original owner and consequently contended that any rent since 31.05.2006 is payable only to the revision petitioner. Therefore, in fact he had objected to the request of the respondent herein for permission for depositing the rents to the credit of O.S.No.156 of 2005. Still the Junior Civil Judge’s Court seemed to

¶14

have passed an order on 19.06.2009 in I.A.No.508 of 2008 overruling the objections of the defendant therein and permitting the respondent herein to deposit the rent into Court. When the defendant in O.S.No.156 of 2005 is not claiming any interest in the property subsequent to the sale in favour of the revision petitioner herein and is not claiming any right to receive the income or rents from the property since after the sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner, any deposit of rents to the credit of O.S.No.156 of 2005 does not appear appropriate. When the respondent herein admits to be the tenant in the property liable to pay the admitted rent of Rs.4,800/- per month, it does not matter for him whether he is permitted to deposit the rents in the other suit or in O.S.No.125 of 2007. In the light of the contentions of the original owner in O.S.No.156 of 2005, the request of the revision petitioner to have the rents deposited in O.S.No.125 of 2007 will facilitate avoidance of any future complications or multiplicity of proceedings and the interests of the respondent also can be safeguarded by not permitting the revision petitioner to withdraw the amounts so deposited to the credit of the matter till the disposal of both the suits i.e., O.S.No.125 of 2007 and O.S.No.156 of 2005 on merits by the respective Courts. The request of the revision petitioner to have the rents deposited at Rs.10,000/- per month from 19.09.2007 till eviction, of course, cannot be considered as any determination of mesne profits to which the revision petitioner may be entitled arises only if he succeeds in the suit and gets the order of eviction and as such during the pendency of the suit, the admitted rent can be directed to be deposited. While the view of the trial Court that there is an order to deposit the rents in respect of the subject property in another suit and therefore the respondent cannot be directed again to deposit the rent in this matter, cannot be considered unreasonable, appropriate directions can be issued in this revision petition about the deposit of

¶15

rent in respect of the subject property so as to govern the further proceedings in both the suits. For that purpose, no further notice need be given to the defendant in O.S.No.156 of 2005 in the light of the specific pleas taken by him in the counter affidavit to I.A.No.508 of 2008 in O.S.No.156 of 2005. The deposit of rents to the credit of O.S.No.125 of 2007 can only be prospective without interfering with what had already happened earlier in the suits. The respondent had produced a copy of the challen dated 26.06.2010 before this Court that an amount of Rs.41,600/- was deposited to the credit of O.S.No.156 of 2005 and under the circumstances the rent up to July 2010 should be permitted to be deposited in O.S.No.156 of 2005 only.

¶16

In the result, the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, in I.A.No.538 of 2009 in O.S.No.125 of 2007 dated 21.06.2010 is set aside and the said petition is ordered directing the respondent therein to deposit Rs.4,800/- per month to the credit of the suit commencing from the month of August, 2010. Such deposit has to be made by 10^th of every succeeding month. The first deposit shall have to be made before 10.09.2010 and the amounts deposited shall be kept in such deposit to the credit of the matter till the final determination of the suit and also till final determination of O.S.No.156 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajwel, and the disbursement of the amount deposited shall be subject to the determination of the rights of the parties in both the suits. The order in I.A.No.508 of 2008 in O.S.No.156 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajwel, permitting the respondent herein to deposit the rent to the credit of that matter shall be restricted to the period till July, 2010.

¶17

The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

¶18

G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶19

20.08.2010 KH

Sadu Badrappa v. M.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadu Badrappa v. M.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Priti Anand Vs Mr. Sagar Dhara

Jakkampudi Subba Rao, Vs Sri Dommeti Venkanna (Died)

Dandamudi Vijayalakshmi, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum- Land Reforms Tribunal

Pentapati Venkataswamy, Vs Pulapa Radhakrishna Murthy

Bandyala Anthaiah , Anthy Reddy Vs P. Srinivas

Bandyala Gouthami Vs P.Srinivas