K. Nageswara Rao vs Sidda Murthy Madhava Reddy

Aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2021 passed in I.A.No.399 of 2020 in O.S.No.117 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 15-A read with Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the second respondent-second defendant to deposit Rs.2,40,000/- per month being rent was dismissed.

K.Nageswara Rao-plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.117 of 2019 against Sidda Murthy Madhava Reddy-first defendant and Komma Sreekanth Reddy-second defendant seeking eviction, recovery of arrears and mesne profits. Plaintiff submitted that he is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property and he purchased the said property from the first defendant vide registered sale deed bearing Document No.1073 of 2015 and thereafter the first defendant requested the plaintiff to give the suit schedule property on lease. Accordingly, the plaintiff leased out the suit schedule property to the first defendant on 10.10.2015 for a period of three years on a monthly rent of Rs.2,00,000/- with enhancement at the rate of 5% per annum and presently the rent amount is Rs.2,20,500/- per month. Since the first defendant is not paying the rent from December, 2017, the plaintiff conducted a panchayat before the elders in May, 2018 and wherein the plaintiff demanded the first defendant to vacate the premises and also to pay arrears of rent, for which the first defendant requested the plaintiff to give two months time and again in July, 2018 the first defendant executed an undertaking-cum-declaration in favour of the plaintiff stating that he will vacate the premises on or before 01.10.2018 and also agreed to pay the arrears of rent. But the first defendant failed to comply with the same and hence the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 15.10.2018 to the first defendant seeking vacation of the property. A reply notice was given by the first defendant on 06.11.2018 stating that he had sublet the premises to the second defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.2,40,000/- from 01.05.2017 to 01.04.2018 for a period of eleven months and the second defendant is not paying rents from October, 2017 to till date and the second defendant also filed suit O.S.No.615 of 2018 on the file of the learned VIII Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, seeking perpetual injunction against the first defendant and as such he cannot handover possession. The plaintiff would submit that the first defendant sublet the premises without his permission and both of them colluded for wrongful gain and thus he filed the present suit seeking the above reliefs. By way of an amendment in I.A.No.1209 of 2019 dated 06.08.2019 the plaintiff inserted the relief of recovery of rents @ Rs.2,40,000/- per month from October 2017 to June 2019 for twenty one months.

In the written statement filed by the second defendant he stated that he was set ex parte on 25.03.2019 and the said order was set aside in I.A.No.2915 of 2019 dated 30.12.2020. The second defendant would further state that the present suit is filed on 27.11.2018 and the court fee paid on 19.08.2019. The first defendant and the plaintiff played fraud on the Court and submitted some documents along with an undertaking and sought for decree of eviction, but the said suit for eviction is not maintainable unless the plaintiff seeks for a declaration of title from the competent Court. The second defendant would submit that there is no proof regarding landlord and tenant relationship between the second defendant and the plaintiff and this defendant is not a tenant of the plaintiff and it is not the case of the plaintiff that he is his tenant and therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek relief against the second defendant. The second defendant also disputed the lease deed on the ground that it requires stamp duty and penalty and requested the Court to dismiss the suit. During the pendency of the suit proceedings the plaintiff filed an application I.A.No.399 of 2020 praying the Court to direct the second defendant to deposit the admitted rent of Rs.2,40,000/- per month from October, 2017 and to continue to pay the same till the disposal of the suit, failing which his defence may be struck off.

The trial Court considering the arguments advanced by both the counsel observed that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the second defendant and no lease deed was executed between them. There is a dispute regarding status of the parties and the quantum of rent is not admitted and thus the triable issues shall be decided after a full-fledged trial and thus the petitioner-plaintiff is not entitled for any direction and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner-plaintiff preferred this revision.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for respondents-defendants and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff would argue that the trial Court passed orders without considering the documents on record including the proceedings in O.S.No.615 of 2018 pending before the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The learned counsel further assert that the second defendant is under illegal occupation of the premises under the lease deed dated 15.04.2017 from the first defendant at the admitted rent of Rs.2,40,000/- per month, but the trial Court instead of directing the second defendant to pay the rent, dismissed his application erroneously. Learned counsel would also assert that in a suit filed between the owner of the immovable property and an unauthorised occupant, Order XV-A CPC empowers the Court to direct the defendant to deposit the rents during the pendency of the suit to safeguard the interest of the owner of the property but the trial Court observed erroneously that the landlord and tenant relationship is not established between them and as such an order cannot be passed and thus prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

Admittedly, plaintiff filed the suit initially against the first defendant but also against the second defendant. Even the written statement was filed by the second defendant. The present application is filed by the plaintiff for a direction to deposit the arrears of rent, failing which struck off the defence of the second defendant. The plaintiff stated that he purchased the suit schedule property from the first defendant but he let out the same to the first defendant on his request and that the first defendant without the knowledge of the plaintiff or consent sublet the same to the second defendant. The rental agreement entered into between the second defendant-tenant and the first defendant on 15.04.2017 is filed. Perusal of the agreement shows that the security deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid by the second defendant to the first defendant in cash and the rent of the premises was agreed as Rs.2,40,000/- per month payable on or before 10th of every month.

The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and he let out the premises to the first defendant but the first defendant in turn without his knowledge or consent let out the same to the second defendant and the second defendant is in an unauthorised occupation of the premises and a trespasser of the premises and as such he filed suit for eviction, recovery of rent and for damages.

Initially, the first defendant defaulted rent from October 2017 and promised to pay the same for which he also gave an undertaking. When the plaintiff issued legal notice to the first defendant, he gave reply notice mentioning about the sub letting of the premises to the second defendant and also the fact that the second defendant has filed O.S.No.615 of 2018 for perpetual injunction against the first defendant and further informed the plaintiff as the second defendant is not paying the rents from October 2017 onwards, the first defendant cannot handover possession to the plaintiff. Therefore, the observation of the trial Court that landlord and tenant relationship was not established between the plaintiff and the second defendant is not on proper lines.

Admittedly the second defendant is not a tenant of plaintiff. The plaintiff let out the premises to the first defendant and the first defendant sublet the same without the knowledge of the plaintiff to the second defendant and admittedly the second defendant is in illegal occupation of the suit schedule premises. As the suit is filed for eviction, during the pendency of the proceedings the defendants has to pay the rents but they have not done so. The first defendant remained ex parte and the second defendant contested the suit. Now the second defendant cannot question the ownership rights of the plaintiff and he cannot deny payment of arrears or rent on the ground that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the second defendant. As the suit filed for eviction is to be disposed of on merits and it takes time some time for its disposal after adducing evidence by both the parties, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to direct the second defendant to pay rent at the rate of Rs.2,40,000/- per month as agreed by him. Admittedly, in the lease deed dated 15.04.2017 the rent has to be paid on or before 10th of every month and the second defendant is also directed to pay the arrears of rent within three months from the date of this order, failing which the second defendant’s defence can be struck off.

For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall also stand closed in the light of this final order.