C Sashi Kumar vs C Srinivas Reddy

These three revisions are filed by the sole defendant in O.S.No.1000 of 2009 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent is the sole plaintiff.

The suit was filed by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule premises. It was pleaded that the respondent is the owner of flat No.201, 1 st floor of the building known as ‘Majestic Heights’ at King Koti, Hyderabad and that the same was given on lease to the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs.13,050/-, through agreement, dated 18.07.2007, for a period of 11 months. He alleged that the petitioner tried to sub-lease the flat to others and that he failed to pay the rents for the premises. It is also alleged that the petitioner filed O.S.No.241 of 2009 before the same Court against the respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction with baseless allegations.

The respondent filed I.A.No.1324 of 2010 in O.S.No.1000 of 2009 under Order 15-A C.P.C. with a prayer to direct the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent, amounting to Rs.2,61,000/- and to continue to pay the rents regularly. The contents of the plaint were almost repeated. The I.A. was opposed by the petitioner by filing a counter. He admitted that he took the premises on lease for a monthly rent of Rs.13,050/- . According to him, the premises was not in habitable condition and extensive repairs had to be made by incurring expenditure of Rs.6,50,000/-. He further alleged that a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- was paid as advance to the respondent and the interest that has accrued thereon is more than sufficient to meet the rents. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order, dated 24.12.2012, directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.6,26,400/- from January 2009 to December 2012, within 15 days and continue to pay the rents at the rate of Rs.13,050/- regularly. C.R.P.No.1324 of 2013 is filed against the said order.

The petitioner did not comply with the order in I.A.No.1324 of 2010. Therefore, the respondent filed I.A.No.803 of 2013 under Section 15-A C.P.C. with a prayer to strike off the defence of the petitioner. The I.A. was allowed through order, dated 30.10.2013. C.R.P.No.5326 of 2013 is filed against that order.

The petitioner filed I.A.No.12 of 2013 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. with a prayer to reject the plaint. He pleaded that the suit was not preceded by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the Act’) and that it was without cause of action. The respondent pleaded that the suit was filed on afflux of time stipulated in the agreement and in that view of the matter, there was no need to issue any notice under Section 106 of the Act. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 30.12.2013. C.R.P.No.5323 of 2013 is filed against the same.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The first two revisions are in relation to an application filed under Order 15-A C.P.C. The petitioner did not dispute that he is the tenant in respect of the suit schedule premises. Order 15-A is a special facility created by the Legislature in suits for eviction from immovable properties. The effort is only to prevent the defendant in suits of that category from avoiding payment of rents. As long as there is no dispute about the existence of relationship of lessee and lessor, the defendant is under obligation to pay the rents.

The contention advanced by the petitioner was that substantial amount was incurred towards repairs and that huge amount was also kept in deposit with the respondent. As regards the first, the trial Court observed that there is no recital in the agreement or any other document authorising the petitioner to carry out repairs much less to adjust the rents towards the expenditure. A tenant or lessee of a premises cannot have the luxury of undertaking repairs to suit his convenience with the amount payable towards rent. The plea of payment of advance was also rejected, since the agreement did not contain any such stipulation. Even where any advance is paid, it is refundable at the time of termination of the tenancy.

The existence of advance even if true, cannot be a plea to oppose an application filed under Order 15-A C.P.C. This Court does not find any merits in the C.R.P. filed against the order passed under Order 15-A C.P.C.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by the trial Court under Order 15-A C.P.C. The inescapable conclusion is that the defence must be struck off. To create some facility to the petitioner, this Court verified as to whether he is prepared to pay the amount, if time is granted. No positive response is forthcoming.

The third revision is filed against the order passed by the trial Court refusing to reject the plaint. It is only when a defendant in a suit establishes to the satisfaction of the trial Court any grounds mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., that an occasion to reject the plaint would arise. The grounds pleaded by the petitioner in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. are mostly defence in the suit than grounds for rejection of a plaint. An extraordinary step, such as rejection of plaint, cannot be taken just for the asking of it. The conduct of the petitioner in enjoying the suit schedule premises without paying the rent and subjecting the respondent to uncalled proceedings is fairly objectionable.

Hence, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall also stand disposed of.