Pachipulusu Suresh vs C. Chandramma

Heard Mr.D.A.Prem Chand, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.210 of 2020 pending on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, in which petitioner is defendant No.2. The suit has been instituted for eviction of the defendants and for recovery of arrears of rent etc. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. plaintiffs filed an interlocutory application under Order XVA Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for a direction to respondent No.1 i.e. respondent No.3 herein to deposit monthly rent from March to September, 2020 and thereafter on regular basis. The said interlocutory application was registered as I.A.No.2381 of 2020. By the order dated 07.03.2022, learned Court below directed that respondent No.2 (petitioner herein) should pay admitted arrear monthly rent of Rs.7,29,250-00 with property tax of Rs.21,500-00.

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interlocutory application the prayer made by the plaintiffs was for a direction to respondent No.1 (respondent No.3 herein) to deposit arrear rents from March to September, 2020 and thereafter to pay monthly rent on regular basis with Rs.21,500-00 as property tax. No relief was sought for against respondent No.2; therefore, learned Court below was not justified in directing respondent No.2 to pay the monthly rent.

4 Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are none other than the father and son; because of old age, the father has entrusted the son to look after the men’s hostel in the suit schedule property. Without paying any rent both father and son are enjoying the property.

5 Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court.

6 After hearing the matter, learned Court below passed the order dated 07.03.2022 directing respondent No.2 to pay the monthly rent. According to the learned Court below the question as to whether respondent No.1 continued to be the tenant or it is respondent No.2 who alone is the tenant has to be decided in the trial. Because of the admission by respondent No.2 that he is the tenant and he is in occupation of the suit schedule property, he was directed to pay the monthly rent. Relevant portion of the order dated 07.03.2022 reads as under:

“11. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners are the owners of the petition schedule property. The respondent No.1 took three floors on lease in September 2016 for running a Boys Hostel. Thereafter, two more floors were taken for running the Boys Hostel. In February 2020, the last floor i.e. 6th floor was also taken for running Boys Hostel and the total rent payable is Rs.7,29,250/-. The Respondent No.1 denied being a tenant of the petition schedule property claiming that due to old age, he has handed over the business to his son i.e. respondent No.2 in consultation with the petitioners on the same terms and conditions of the lease. The respondent No.2 for his part adhered to the pleadings of the respondent No.1. There is no denial form respondent No.2 about the ownership of the petition schedule property or the rents paid or the lease being taken by his father in the year September 2016.

The dispute is whether the respondent No.1 continues to be the tenant or it is respondent No.2 alone who is the tenant. Said dispute can be resolved after a full-fledged trial. Currently, since there is an admission by respondent No.2 that he is the tenant and he is in occupation of the petition schedule property, therefore, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay admitted monthly rent of Rs.7,29,250/- with property tax at Rs.21,500/-.

There is a dispute about default in payment of rents. Since the respondent No.2 claims that he paid rents, but the signature of Chandra Sekhar or Sreedhar or Shyam were not taken in good faith due to existence of a cordial relationship, the issue of default of the respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 being liable to pay arrears of rent can be decided after a full-fledged trial.

For the present, since both the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are father and son in relation have admitted by way of pleadings that it is respondent No.2, who is running the hostel, the respondent No.2 is directed to pay arrears of rents and property tax as per calculation memo filed by the petitioners for an amount of Rs.1,66,96,928/- and to pay admitted rent and property tax per month from March, 2022 onwards to the credit of the suit on or before 5th of every month till the disposal of the suit. The respondent No.2 is directed to pay the arrears of rent within two months from the date of this order.

In the result, the petition is allowed directing the respondent No.2 to pay the arrears of rents of Rs.1,66,96,298/- to the credit of the suit within two months from the date of this order and continue to pay the admitted rent of Rs.7,29,250/- and property tax of Rs.21,500/- on or before 5th of every month from March, 2022 onwards to the credit of the suit pending disposal of the suit and on failure of making any such deposits as now ordered, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to apply for passing of the consequential orders as per law and procedure.”

7 When learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 was queried as to how learned Court below could direct respondent No.2 to pay the rent when the relief sought for in the interlocutory application was against respondent No.1 and though the learned Court below has recorded that on the admission by respondent No.2 that he is the tenant and that he is in occupation of the suit schedule property, therefore, he was directed to pay the monthly rent, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that he would withdraw I.A.No.2381 of 2020 and file a fresh interlocutory application against both respondent Nos.1 and 2.

8 In view of above, the order dated 07.03.2022 is hereby set aside. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) are granted liberty to file fresh interlocutory application under Order XVA Rule 1 CPC whereafter learned Court below shall pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of filing of the fresh interlocutory application.

9 This disposes of the Civil Revision Petition. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand disposed of.