AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
122 paragraphs · 2,305 wordsThese three Revisions arise out of the same suit between the same parties and so they are being disposed of by this common order.
The petitioners in these cases are landlords of the respondents / tenants.
The suit O.S.No.230 of 2019
The petitioners had filed O.S.No.230 of 2019 before the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad for eviction of the respondents
from the suit schedule properties and to direct the respondents to pay Rs.12,87,452/- along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till
realization and also to pay damages @ Rs.7,00,000/- per month from the date of the suit till the date of vacating and handing over possession of the
suit schedule properties.
It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents had not been paying rents from November, 2018 till January, 2019 including maintenance and
GST; that they issued legal notice to the respondents on 25.01.2019 terminating the lease; and so they are entitled to damages also at Rs.7,00,000/- per
month.
Written statement was filed on 26.06.2019 by the 1st respondent opposing the suit claim on several grounds.
I.A.No.451 of 2019
Along with the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.451 of 2019 under Order XV-A CPC for a direction to the respondents to deposit admitted monthly
rents of Rs.12,87,452/- towards arrears of rent, including maintenance and GST and to continue to deposit the monthly rents at the rate of
Rs.4,29,150.66 ps. per month till disposal of the main suit.
On 27.08.2019, this Application was allowed with costs and the respondents were directed to deposit the arrears of monthly rents for the suit
schedule properties at the rate of Rs.3,50,426.50 ps. from December, 2018 to January, 2019 and to continue to pay monthly rents at the same rate
from February, 2019 on or before 5th of each calendar month directly to the petitioners, and in default of either of the conditions, it was directed that
the defence of the respondents/defendants in the suit shall be struck off.
I.A.No.1759 of 2019
Subsequently, the respondents filed I.A.No.1759 of 2019 in the Court below for modification of the order dt.27.08.2019 in I.A.No.451 of 2019
contending that they had made a counter claim to the tune of Rs.1,55,50,000/- with interest against the petitioners, and so the rental amounts directed
in the order have to be modified to the extent of permitting the respondents to deposit arrears of rents into the Court instead of paying them directly to
the petitioners without any security.
This Application was dismissed by the Court below on 02.12.2019.
C.R.P.No.263 of 2020
In the meantime, the petitioners had filed C.R.P.No.263 of 2020 challenging the order dt.27.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.451 of 2019 contending that
though the Court below had mentioned in para 5 of the said order that the respondents are due rents from November 2018, in the last paragraph of the
order the Court below had incorrectly directed the respondents to pay rents only from December, 2018. It was also contended that there is liability to
pay Goods and Service Tax on the rents payable by the respondents to the petitioners, and that the said liability should also be discharged by the
respondents; and though this contention was raised in the Court below, it did not advert to this point when it passed the order on 27.08.2019 in
I.A.No.451 of 2019.
Both these contentions were accepted by this Court and the CRP was allowed on 12.03.2020 directing the respondents to pay rent for the month
of November,2018 as well to petitioners; and to pay every month to the Competent Authority under the GST Act, 2017, tax @ 18% on the rent of
Rs.3,50,462/- payable every month to the petitioners; the arrears of GST on the rent for the period from November, 2018 till 12.03.2020 were directed
to be deposited to the credit of the suit within four (4) weeks along with the rent for the month of November, 2018.
It was made clear that in default of payment of the same, the defence of the respondents was liable to be struck off.
It also permitted the amount deposited towards the rent for November, 2018 and the amounts deposited towards GST by the respondents to be
withdrawn by the petitioners so that they can transmit the GST amounts to the Competent Authority under the GST Act, 2017.
I.A.No.114 of 2020
The petitioners subsequently filed I.A.No.114 of 2020 to strike off the defence of the respondents stating that the respondents did not comply with
the order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.451 of 2019 though two months have elapsed by then.
Counter affidavit was filed to this Application by the 1st respondent stating that they were ready to pay the rents, that the respondents have tried
to hand over a cheque bearing No.000411 dt.15.01.2020 for Rs.12,61,668/- on 20.01.2020, but the petitioners refused to receive the same. He stated
that the respondents, in order to show their bonafides, had obtained Demand Draft bearing No.008773 for Rs.12,61,668/- dt.28.01.2020 in favour of IX
Additional Chief Judge and were ready to deposit the same to the credit of the suit and the said amount is towards four (4) months rent after
deducting TDS.
By order dt.03.02.2020, the Court below dismissed the said Application observing that there are many contentious issues to be tried, that the
counter claim of the respondents is also to be tried by framing appropriate issues, and that the defence of the respondents in the written statement
which also contains their counter claim, cannot be struck off.
Assailing the same, the petitioners filed C.R.P.No.631 of 2021.
I.A.No.597 of 2020
Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.No.597 of 2020 again to strike off the defence of the respondents on the ground that the order passed by this
Court on 12.03.2020 in C.R.P.No.263 of 2020 directing the respondents to pay the rent for November, 2018 and to continue to pay the rents along
with GST @ 18% on the rent of Rs.3,50,462/- payable every month, was not complied with; and the arrears of GST on the rents from November,
2018 had not been deposited to the credit of O.S.No.230 of 2019 within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this Court’s order in the CRP
No.263 of 2020 along with rent for November, 2018.
Again a counter affidavit was filed thereto by the respondents stating that they had deposited on 24.08.2020, Rs.6,30,834/- vide D.D.No.009013,
that they had deposited the same amount vide another D.D.No.00844 of the same date, and the same amount through another D.D.No.009067
dt.03.10.2020. They also stated that they had filed an Application along with D.D.No.008773 dt.28.01.2020 for Rs.12,61,688/-seeking permission to
deposit the same into the suit account. They also claimed that at the time when the respondents were inducted as tenants, they had paid interest free
security deposit of Rs.15,90,000/- and after deducting the said security deposit and the amounts paid by way of demand drafts, the respondents are
only liable to pay monthly rents for a period of six months and not 23 months as claimed by the petitioners. They again referred to the counter claim
filed by them. They also referred to certain Government Orders issued by the State of Telangana directing the property owners to defer collection of
monthly rents for three months.
The respondents thus admitted that the rents were due for six months and because there is pandemic of Covid-19, it would be unfair and unjust on
the part of the petitioners to expect the tenants to pay rents.
By order dt.02.11.2020, the Court below disposed of I.A.No.597 of 2020 observing that the respondents should pay Rs.4,13,545/- from October,
2020 without any further default and directed the parties to get ready for trial.
It noted that it appeared from the record that the respondents were still in default of payment of huge amount of Rs.4,13,545/- being the monthly rent
+ GST at 18% as per the order passed in C.R.P.No.263 of 2020 from October, 2020.
But instead of striking off the defence of the respondents, when there is specific order passed by this Court on 12.03.2020 in C.R.P.No.263 of 2020,
the Court below directed the parties to get ready for trial.
This is challenged by the petitioners in C.R.P.No.663 of 2021.
I.A.No.139 of 2021
Subsequent thereto, the petitioners filed another I.A.No.139 of 2021 under Order XV-A CPC to direct the respondents to deposit the admitted
monthly rents of Rs.59,28,816/- towards arrears of rent and also direct the respondents to pay monthly agreed rent till the disposal of the main suit.
By a cryptic order dt.04.03.2021, the Court below closed the said I.A. on the ground that similar petitions were filed earlier, and after elaborate
enquiry they were ordered; that the petitioners had withdrawn certain rents deposited in the Court by filing cheque petitions, and the petitioners cannot
be expected to invite orders again and again. It observed that the calculation memos filed by the parties will be considered at the time of the trial.
Challenging the said order, petitioners filed CRP No.527 of 2021.
Contentions of counsel for petitioners
Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners sought to contend that having regard to the finding recorded in the order
dt.02.11.2020 in I.A.No.597 of 2020 by the Court below about non-compliance by the respondents of the order passed by this Court on
03.2020 in C.R.P.No.263 of 2020, the Court below had no choice except to strike off the defence of the respondents, and there is no necessity for
giving opportunity to the respondents to contest the matter in view of the language contained in Order XV-A CPC and so the CRPs are to be allowed.
Contention of Counsel for respondents
Sri Sunil, learned counsel appearing for M/s.Chandrasen Law Offices appearing for the respondents however contended that since only small
portion of the amount was found to have been defaulted by the respondents, the Court should take lenient view of the matter and allow the trial to
proceed. He offered to deposit the amounts liable to be paid by the respondents. He also admitted that GST was not paid to the Competent Authority
by the respondents after order dt.12.03.2020 in C.R.P.No.263 of 2020.
Consideration by the Court
I find considerable force in the contentions of the counsel for the petitioners.
Admittedly in I.A.No.451 of 2019, there was a direction to the respondents to deposit arrears of monthly rent at the rate of Rs.3,50,426.50 ps.
from December, 2018 to January, 2019 and continue to pay monthly rents at the same rate from February, 2019 on or before 5th of each calendar
month directly to the petitioners.
This order was modified in C.R.P.No.263 of 2020 on 12.03.2020 asking the respondents to deposit rent for November, 2018 also with arrears of
GST on rent from November, 2018 till 12.03.2020 in four (4) weeks.
By virtue of the observation in the said order, the liability to pay GST is on the tenants only.
There was also a direction to the respondents to pay GST @ 18% on the rent of Rs.3,50,462/- payable every month to the petitioners.
In the table given by the Court below in para 7 of its order in I.A.No.597 of 2020 at page 6, the dates of deposit by the respondents are indicated.
Since the Court below had directed deposit from December, 2018 to January, 2019 in its initial order on 27.08.2019, the payment to the petitioners
should have started immediately after the said order. If the petitioners had declined to receive any payments, then permission of the Court should have
been taken to deposit the same in the Court.
But the payments for the months of November, 2018 to January, 2019 were made through D.D.No.008773 dt.28.01.2020, D.D.No.009013
dt.24.08.2020 and D.D.No.008844 dt.24.08.2020 .
The rents for February and March, 2019 were deposited vide D.D.No.009067 dt.03.10.2020 and D.D.No.009076 dt.09.10.2020.
Even according to the Court below, from April, 2019 to September, 2020, no deposits have been made and no amount was credited towards GST
to the Competent Authority under the GST Act.
In the order passed by it on 02.11.2020 in I.A.No.597 of 2020, the Court below had observed as under:
“Therefore, as seen from the calculations in the above table, the respondent in total has deposited a sum of Rs.37,85,004/-. From November 2018
to September 2020 i.e. for a total period of 23 months, the respondent has to pay Rs.95,11,535/- towards arrears of rent along with GST at 18% for 23
months and out of which a sum of Rs.37,85,004/- if deducted, the remaining amount of arrears of rent comes to Rs.57,26,531/-. Therefore, the sum of
Rs.37,85,004/- can be adjusted approximately towards 9 months rent including GST at 18%. As per the table shown above, still the respondent is due
monthly rents + GST at 18% for 14 months……â€
Thus, there is a clear finding that the respondents are due monthly rents + GST at 18% for 14 months.
Therefore, there is clear non-compliance with the lower Court’s order dt.27.08.2019 in I.A.No.451 of 2019 as modified in the order
dt.12.03.2020 in C.R.P.No.263 of 2020 by this Court.
In view of the same, under Rule (2) of Order XV-A CPC, the defence of the respondents in the suit is liable to be struck off.
Therefore, the three CRPs are allowed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/-to be paid by the respondents to the petitioners; the defence of the respondents
in the suit O.S.No.230 of 2019 is struck off; and the Court below is directed to proceed further in the matter and decide the suit.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Revisions shall stand closed.