Rent control case - interim application for deposit of rents pending disposal of case - filing suit for specific performance and as such denied to pay rents - Trial court order to deposit the same as mere filing specific performance suit not confers title - suit for specific performance was dismissed -pending appeal rents were deposited - appeal allowed - High court held that It may be true that mere decreeing of the suit for specific performance or deposit of balance consideration does not bring about absolute ownership in favour of the respondents. However, those developments would certainly constitute reasonable cause for the delay in payment of the rents. The learned Rent Controller took note of the factum of the deposit of rents by the time the I.A was taken up for hearing. With the deposit of such rents, the order passed under Section 11(1) of the Act stood complied with. Therefore, C.R.No. 1130 of 2013 is dismissed as infructuous and C.R.P No. 3484 of 2013 is dismissed as devoid of merits.= CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1130 OF 2013 and batch 01-08-2014 Mrs. K. Suneetha Wasley and another... PETITIONERS Mr. A. Manik Rao and two others .. RESPONDENTS = 2014 - Aug.Month - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11822

Rent control case - interim application for deposit of rents pending disposal of case - filing suit for specific performance and as such denied to pay rents - Trial court order to deposit the same as mere filing specific performance suit not confers title -  suit for specific performance was dismissed -pending appeal rents were deposited - appeal allowed -  High court held that It may be true that mere decreeing of the suit for specific performance or deposit of balance consideration does not bring about absolute ownership in favour of the respondents.  However, those developments would certainly constitute reasonable cause for the delay in payment of the rents.  The learned Rent
Controller took note of the factum of the deposit of rents by the time the I.A was taken up for hearing.  With the deposit of such rents, the order passed under Section 11(1) of the Act
stood complied with.  Therefore, C.R.No. 1130 of 2013 is dismissed as infructuous and C.R.P No. 3484 of 2013 is dismissed as devoid of merits.=

      The respondents shall be under obligation to pay the
rents which in turn shall be subject to the outcome of the
second appeal that is filed by the petitioners i.e., the
landlords. =

The learned Rent Controller passed order dated
21-01-2010 allowing I.A No. 230 of 2010.  It was observed
that even if the respondents have an agreement of sale in
their faour, they are under obligation to pay the rents till a
sale deed is executed in their favour.  15 days time was
granted for payment of arrears of rent.=


  In the instant case, it is no doubt true that the plea
raised by the respondents that they need not pay the rents on
account of there being an agreement of sale in respect of that
very property was rejected and the same was upheld by the
lower appellate Court.  That however was at a time when the
suit filed for the relief of specific performance of agreement of
sale was dismissed.  When the present set of proceedings
were in progress, A.S No. 76 of 2010 filed by the respondents
was allowed and thereby, the suit was decreed.  It is brought
to the notice of the Court that the balance of consideration
was deposited by the respondents paving the way for
execution of the sale deed.  It may be true that mere
decreeing of the suit for specific performance or deposit of
balance consideration does not bring about absolute
ownership in favour of the respondents.  However, those
developments would certainly constitute reasonable cause
for the delay in payment of the rents.  The learned Rent
Controller took note of the factum of the deposit of rents by
the time the I.A was taken up for hearing.  With the deposit of
such rents, the order passed under Section 11(1) of the Act
stood complied with.

      Therefore, C.R.No. 1130 of 2013 is dismissed as
infructuous and C.R.P No. 3484 of 2013 is dismissed as
devoid of merits.

      The respondents shall be under obligation to pay the
rents which in turn shall be subject to the outcome of the
second appeal that is filed by the petitioners i.e., the
landlords.

      The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall
also stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.
2014 - Aug.Month - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11822

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1130 OF 2013 and batch    

01-08-2014

Mrs. K. Suneetha Wasley and another... PETITIONERS  

Mr. A. Manik Rao and two others .. RESPONDENTS    

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri D. Hanumantha Rao
                              (C.R.P No. 1130 of 2013)

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. Manjari S. Ganu
                              (C.R.P No. 1130 of 2013)

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred

       
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1130 AND 3484 OF 2013    
       
Dated:01-08-2014
       

ORDER:


      These two revisions are between the same parties in
relation to the same dispute.  Hence, they are disposed of
through a common order.

      For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as arrayed in C.R.P No. 3484 of 2013.

      The petitioners are the owners of premises bearing
No. 2-3-145, Nallagutta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad.  The
premises were leased to the respondents.  The petitioners
filed R.C No. 11 of 2008 before the Principal Rent Controller,
Secunderabad for eviction of the respondents.  One of the
grounds pleaded was that the respondents committed default
in payment of rents.

      The petitioners filed I.A No. 230 of 2010 under
Section 11 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent
and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act), with a
prayer to direct the respondents to deposit arrears of rent.  It
was pleaded that the respondents did not pay the rents for
quite a considerable period.

      The respondents pleaded that though they took the
premises on lease, the petitioners offered to sell the same and
accordingly, an agreement of sale was entered into on
19-12-1988 and as against the total consideration of
Rs.3,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- was paid.  Claiming
rights under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, it
was pleaded that they are not under obligation to pay the
rents.  It was also mentioned that they filed O.S No.91 of
2000 in the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Secunderabad for specific performance of the agreement of
sale.

      The learned Rent Controller passed order dated
21-01-2010 allowing I.A No. 230 of 2010.  It was observed
that even if the respondents have an agreement of sale in
their faour, they are under obligation to pay the rents till a
sale deed is executed in their favour.  15 days time was
granted for payment of arrears of rent.

      The respondents filed R.A No. 368 of 2010 in the Court
of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, against the order in
I.A No. 230 of 2010.  The appeal was dismissed through order
dated 23-12-2013.  However, two months time was granted
for payment of arrears.  C.R.P No. 1130 of 2013 is filed by the
respondents against the order in R.A No. 368 of 2010.
      After the order in I.A No. 230 of 2010 became final with
the dismissal of R.A No. 368 of 2010, the petitioners filed I.A
No. 89 of 2013 under Section 11(4) of the Act, with a prayer
to direct the respondents to put them in vacant possession of
the property since the respondents did not pay the arrears,
within the stipulated time.  The I.A was opposed by the
respondents stating that the delay in deposit of arrears of rent
was on account of non-availability of the certified copy of the
order in R.A No. 368 of 2010 and that with some delay, they
have already deposited the arrears of rent.  It was also
pleaded that though O.S No. 91 of 2000 filed for specific
performance of agreement of sale was dismissed by the trial
Court, but A.S No. 76 of 2010 filed by them in the Court of I
Additional Chief Judge was allowed, granting the decree of
specific performance.  Taking these aspects into account, the
learned Rent Controller dismissed I.A No. 89 of 2013 through
order dated 08-07-2013.  C.R.P No. 3484 of 2013 is filed
against it.

      Heard Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri D. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for
the respondents.

      Both the revisions are referable to the order passed
under Section 11(1) of the Act.  The respondents did not
dispute the non-payment of the rent for some time.  The
justification pleaded by them was that the petitioners
executed an agreement of sale and received substantial
consideration and in that view of the matter, there is no
necessity to pay the rents for the premises.

      Such contention was rejected and order under
Section 11(1) of the Act was passed.  Appeal filed against the
same by the respondents was dismissed.  Then came the  
occasion to file an application under Section 11(4) of the Act
and accordingly, I.A No. 89 of 2013 was filed.  The same was
dismissed by taking note of certain developments.  Section
11(4) provides for drastic consequences, in case, the
ingredients thereof are established.  The owner of the
premises would be entitled to get the possession of the
premises without the necessity of proving any other facts
such as wilful default in payment of rents or bona fide
requirement of the premises.  Obviously, because the
consequences are drastic, the Legislature has taken care to
ensure that every failure to pay the arrears of rent does not
entail in eviction.   It is only when the amount of arrears was
not deposited without there being any reasonable cause, that
the order under Section 11(4) of the Act can be passed.

      In the instant case, it is no doubt true that the plea
raised by the respondents that they need not pay the rents on
account of there being an agreement of sale in respect of that
very property was rejected and the same was upheld by the
lower appellate Court.  That however was at a time when the
suit filed for the relief of specific performance of agreement of
sale was dismissed.  When the present set of proceedings 
were in progress, A.S No. 76 of 2010 filed by the respondents
was allowed and thereby, the suit was decreed.  It is brought
to the notice of the Court that the balance of consideration
was deposited by the respondents paving the way for
execution of the sale deed.  It may be true that mere
decreeing of the suit for specific performance or deposit of
balance consideration does not bring about absolute
ownership in favour of the respondents.  However, those
developments would certainly constitute reasonable cause
for the delay in payment of the rents.  The learned Rent
Controller took note of the factum of the deposit of rents by
the time the I.A was taken up for hearing.  With the deposit of
such rents, the order passed under Section 11(1) of the Act
stood complied with.

      Therefore, C.R.No. 1130 of 2013 is dismissed as
infructuous and C.R.P No. 3484 of 2013 is dismissed as
devoid of merits.

      The respondents shall be under obligation to pay the
rents which in turn shall be subject to the outcome of the
second appeal that is filed by the petitioners i.e., the
landlords.

      The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall
also stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________     
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
01-08-2014

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.

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.

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