Allowed

Rekulapally Sadanandam, v. Medishetty Srinivas

Telangana HC9 Dec 2024CRP/3175/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application seeking direction to deposit rent arrears. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to consider the application under the amended Order XV-A of the CPC.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the application under Order XV-A is set aside; the trial court is directed to hear the suit expeditedly and pass appropriate orders including deposit of monthly rent.

Rekulapally Sadanandam, Vs Medishetty Srinivas — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴⁰⁵ ]

¶2

I I I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTA,TEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY^{OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE^{MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA}

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N NO:^{3'175 OF 2024}

¶8

Petition under Article 227 ol the^{Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the} order dated 22to712024^{passed in l.A.No.'406/2022in o.S.No. 3110/2022on the} file of the court of the^{Principal Juniorcivil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate First} Class, Warangal.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Rekulapally Sadanandam,^{S/o. LateR. Mallaiah,Age} -69 years, Occ Advocate, nlo H.No.1-7-1344, Road No.6,^{Advocates Colony, Balasamudram,} Hanumakonda, Warangal^{City and District.}

¶11

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶12

AND

¶13

Medishetty Srinivas, S/o^{LateM.sadashivudu, Occ. Business, R/o H No 13-1-} 101, S.V.N. Road,^{Warangal City and District-}

¶14

...RespondenUDefendant

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} the Respondent to^{deposit a sum of Rs.6,18,6501 to the credit of the suit in o.s.} No. 311012022 on^{the file of PrincipalJuniorcivil Judge-cum-JudicialMagistrate} First Class, Warangal^{pending disposal of the CRP.}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: Mr. J. Venkateswara Reddy}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{: Mr. ParsaAnanth NageswarRao}

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶21

CTVIL REVISION PETITION N0.3175 0F 2024

¶22

Mr. J. Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The Civil Revision Petition arises out an order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cumJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, in I.A.No.406 of 2022 in O.S.No.31 lO of 2022.

¶25

By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner herein (plaintiff in O.S.No.3 IIO of 2O221 for directing the respondent/defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.6,1g,O50/_ towards arrears of rent before filing Written Statement, was dismissed. The application was liled under Order XV-A (which was brought into existence by way of The Andhra pradesh (A.p.) State Amendment) Rules 1 and 2 of The Code of Civil procedure, 1908. The A.P. State Amendment to Order XV_A of the C.p.C contemplates that the defendant shall deposit the amount of undisputed arrears while filing the Written Statement.

¶26

The petitioner/ptaintiff filed a Suit (O.S.No.3110 of 2O221 for eviction and for direction on the respondent/defendant to pay arrears of rent of Rs.6,18,OSO/- as well as to pay damages.

¶27

I I l

¶28

¶29

According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ plaintiff, the Lease Agreement dated 22.O9.2017 commenced from 01.09.20i7 and expired on 31.07.201g. Counsel submits that the respondent/ defendant has however remained in occupation of the leased premises despite several notices sent to the respondent including a recent Legal Notice dated 14.09.2022. Counsel relies on the A.P. State Amendment to Order XV-A of the C.P.C to urge that the defendant is bound to deposit the arrears of rent where the lease has been terminated.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submits that the amount of arrears is disputed and that the A.P. State Amendment to Order XVI-A of the C.P.C will not apply to these facts since the lease was not terminated. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has suppressed vitai facts before the Trial Court by which reason the Trial Court dismissed the petition.

¶31

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the documents placed before the Court, it is undisputed that the l,ease Agreement executed between the parties on 22.09.2017 came to an end on 31.O7.2078 and there was no extension of the Lease Agreement after that. Although

¶32

¶33

the respondent/defendant argues that the Lease Agreement was converted into a monthly tenancy on and from 01.0g.201g, there is no clarity with regard to the same from the documents placed on record.

¶34

What is equally undisputed is that the respondent has continued to occupy the premises despite the lease coming to an end without payment of monthly rents to the petitioner/ landlord on and from OT.Og.2O2l. This date would appear from the I-egal Notice sent by the petitioner to the respondent which records that the respondent had given a written undertaking on O2.O9.2O21 to pay Rs.3,g6,65O/- and has deposited 4 post-dated cheques, all of which were subsequently d ishonored.

¶35

The contents of the Legal Notice dated 14.C/9.2022 are undisputed and the respondent has also not disputed that the respondent has failed/refused to pay monthly rents to the petitioner frorn 07 .O9.2O21 . Tine petitioner filed the Suit before the Trial Court on Ol.lO.2O22. Moreover, the respondent,s contention that the A.p. State Amendment to Order XV-A of the C.P.C does not apply to the facts of the present case is also not acceptable since the Legal Notice clearly states that the petitioner demanded that the respondent vacates the leased

¶36

¶37

¶38

premises on 30.09.2022 and hand over vacant possession ofthe same on Ol.lO.2O22.

¶39

Whether tfre A.P. State Amendment to Order XV-A of the C.P.C. would apply to the respondent is a secondary issue. The more important issue is that he who demands equit5r must do equity. The respondent's contention that the petitioner failed to disclose relevant facts in terms of a payrnent made by the respondent or the duration of the leased period pales into insignificance compared to the respondent continuing to occupy the leascd premises after 31.07.2018 without paying monthly rents from 07.O9.2021 .

¶40

The A.P. State Amendment to Order XV-A (2) of the C.p.C authorizes the Court to direct the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent to the Court in the evcnt the defendant disputes the issue of arrears of rent. Hence, the Trial Court should have taken the undisputed facts into account besides a correct interpretation of the A.P. Amendment to Order XV-A of the C.P.C. Above all, the 'frial Court should have passed appropriate orders on the defendant to at least deposit the monthly rent of Rs.24,2OO I - as recorded in the Lease Agreement dated 22.09.2017 on and frorn 07.O9.2O21. Having not done so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶41

¶42

C.R.P.No.3t7S of 2024 is accordingiy allowed and disposed of. The Trial Court shall be at libert5r of hearing the Suit on an expedited basis and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law including under the A.p. Amendment to Order XV-A(2) of the C.p.C.

¶43

Al1 connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL AS c ION REGISTRAROFFICER t

¶46

To,

¶47

The Princrpal Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate First class, Warangal.

¶48

One CC to lVIr. J. Venkateswara Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to [\4r. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, Advocate tOpUC] 4. Two CD Copies

DL/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:0911212024

ORDER

CRP.No.3175 of 2024

C.R.P. IS ALLOWED AND DISPOSED OF

¶55

HE STA
t
I
Ill 3 0 JAN 2025 o ilil
d)
O5 .Sr,ATCH r-o

¶56

("
I

Rekulapally Sadanandam, v. Medishetty Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekulapally Sadanandam, v. Medishetty Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Nmd Construction Vs The State Bank of India

Ahmed Akram Abbas Vs The Union Government Of India

M/s. Om Sai Stone Crusher Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Sri Pavana Keerthi Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Andhra Bank

P.Vidya Sagar Vs Reserve Bank of India

Mohammed Shaker Qureshi Vs The Regional Passport Office