Order XV-A read with Section 94 (E) of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short "CPC"), with a prayer to direct the petitioner to deposit the rents into the Court at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month. -Through its order dated 09-11-2010, the lower appellate Court allowed the interlocutory application directing the petitioner to deposit the rents at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month. Respondents were permitted to withdraw half of the amount with security and half without security.= One of the requirements for a Court to pass an order under Order - XV-A of CPC is that there should not be any dispute as to quantum of rent or the liability to pay the same. In the instant case, rent was determined by the trial Court while disposing of the suit itself. - Petitioner pleaded that the rent, which was fixed at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month by the trial Court, was varied with the consent of the parties. That plea could have been accepted, if only, something in writing is placed before the lower appellate Court. No such effort was made. On the other hand, respondents flatly denied existence of any such arrangement. - Petitioner does not dispute that the respondents are owners of the property. The very purpose of requiring the tenant or lessee of a premises to deposit the rents pending disposal of the suits, is to avoid inconvenience and hardship to the owner. The condition requiring the respondents to furnish bank guarantee for withdrawal of half of the rents is certainly onerous.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9761

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY            

CRP No.5990;6140 of 2010

28-03-2013

Smt. Gullapalli Vijayasree

Rednam Satyavathi and 2 others

Counsel for the petitioner:Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram

Counsel for the respondents: M.S.R. Subrahmanyam  

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?CASES REFERRED:    

C 15

COMMON ORDER:    

Both these revisions are between the same parties and against
the same order, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2.  For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in
C.R.P. No.5990 of 2010.

3.  Respondents are owners of a building situated at a commercial locality i.e.,
Rednam Gardens, Vishakapatnam.  Petitioner is their tenant.
 Respondents filed
O.S. No.985 of 2003 in the Court of
III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vishakapatnam, for
eviction of the petitioner and recovery of damages.  
The trial Court decreed the
suit and determined the damages at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month.
Aggrieved
by that, petitioner preferred A.S. No.224 of 2010 in the Court of Principal
District Judge, Vishakapatnam.
Respondents filed I.A. No.2199 of 2010 in that
appeal under Order XV-A read with Section 94 (E) of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short "CPC"), with a prayer to direct the petitioner to deposit the rents into the Court at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month.  
The application was
opposed by the petitioner.
He pleaded that though the trial Court determined
the damages at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month, there was an understanding
between him and the respondents for payment of rent at Rs.8,925/-.
Through its
order dated 09-11-2010, the lower appellate Court allowed the interlocutory
application directing the petitioner to deposit the rents at the rate of
Rs.21,000/- per month.  
Respondents were permitted to withdraw half of the
amount with security and half without security.

4.  Petitioner challenged the said order feeling aggrieved by the direction as
to deposit of rents.  Respondents, on the other hand, filed C.R.P. No.6140 of
2010 feeling aggrieved by the condition as to furnishing bank guarantee for
withdrawal of half of the deposited
amount.

5.  Heard Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the respondents.

6.  This is a typical case, where the facility provided for under Order - XV-A
of CPC was invoked at the stage of appeal. 
 It is not in dispute that in the
suit filed by the respondents for eviction and recovery of damages, no
application was filed under that provision during the pendency of the suit.  It
was filed for the first time during the pendency of the appeal.

7.  One of the requirements for a Court to pass an order under Order - XV-A of CPC is that there should not be any dispute as to quantum of rent or the liability to pay the same.  In the instant case, rent was determined by the trial Court while disposing of the suit itself.  Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any dispute as to quantum of rent, though such determination was
subject to the right of appeal of the petitioner.

8.  Petitioner pleaded that the rent, which was fixed at the rate of Rs.21,000/-
per month by the trial Court, was varied with the consent of the parties.  
That
plea could have been accepted, if only, something in writing is placed before
the lower appellate Court.  No such effort was made.  
On the other hand,
respondents flatly denied existence of any such arrangement. 
 Hence, no
exception can be taken to the directions issued by the lower appellate Court for
deposit of the rents into the Court during the pendency of the appeal.

9.  Therefore, C.R.P. No.5990 of 2010 is dismissed.

10.  Petitioner does not dispute that the respondents are owners of the
property.  The very purpose of requiring the tenant or lessee of a premises to
deposit the rents pending disposal of the suits, is to avoid inconvenience and
hardship to the owner.  The condition requiring the respondents to furnish bank
guarantee for withdrawal of half of the rents is certainly onerous.

11.  Therefore, C.R.P. No.6140 of 2010 is allowed and it is directed that the
respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited, in
compliance of the orders passed by the lower appellate Court in I.A. No.2199 of
2010, without furnishing any security.  Three (03) months time is granted to the
petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent, if any.

12.  Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions filed in these revisions shall
stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________  
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
March 28, 2013.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.