HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Chaitanya Lanka, S/o. Sambasiva Rao Lanka, aged 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.1030/A, Road No.51, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and another - Petitioners
Versus
Suresh Kumar Gupta, S/o. Sri Umraolal Gupta, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Business, R/o. G-3, Reliance Manor, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and Others - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.433 of 2014
Decided on: 08-07-2014
Result---Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.2181 of 2012 in O.S.No.734 of 2011. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit.
The respondents filed the suit against the petitioners for the relief of eviction of the petitioners from the suit schedule premises admeasuring 3000 square feet in Himayatnagar locality of Hyderabad. It was pleaded that the respondents are the joint owners of the premises of a building known as Papalal Chambers and that the petitioners have taken the suit schedule premises comprising of the first floor on lease for establishing a Bar and Restaurant with effect from 01.04.2010 on a rent of Rs.1,50,000/- per month. It was also mentioned that the petitioners agreed to pay the rents on or before 5th of every month to the respondents in accordance with their shares. According to the respondents, the petitioners were irregular in payment of rents and a notice dated 16.04.2011 was issued demanding the arrears of rent of Rs.18,00,000/- together with interest. Reference was made to a reply dated 26.05.2011 issued by the petitioners. Ultimately, they prayed for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of Rs.29,89,650/- upto the date of filing of the suit.
The respondents have also filed I.A.No.2181 of 2012 under Order XV-A C.P.C with a prayer to direct the petitioners herein to deposit the accumulated arrears of rent of Rs.63,00,000/- upto the date of filing of the I.A and to direct the petitioners to pay damages at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per month. Apart from reiterating the contents of the plaint, the respondents have stated that even after filing of the suit, the petitioners did not pay the rents.
The I.A. was opposed by the petitioners by filing a counter- affidavit. The existence of relationship of lessors and lessees, between the parties was not disputed. However, they disputed the date of commencement of the lease. It was stated that the respondents agreed to execute a lease deed in respect of the premises for a period of nine years and that they have failed to do so. The petitioners further stated that they spent a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- towards renovation of the premises for establishing a Bar and Restaurant and paid Rs.9,00,000/- to M/s. Platinum Constructions. The total investment is said to be Rs.1,38,00,000/- on the assurance that the lease would be for a period of nine years. The petitioners further pleaded that if they are required to vacate the premises, the respondents would be under obligation to pay the said amount of Rs.1,38,00,000/- together with interest apart from the amount paid towards advance and the loss sustained by them.
The trial Court passed the order under revision, directing the petitioners to pay the accumulated arrears being Rs.61,50,000/- within two months and to continue to pay the future rents @ Rs.1,50,000/- per month. It was mentioned that if the petitioners fail to pay the amount as directed, their right to defend the suit will be struck off.
Sri B.V.Subbaiah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the ownership of the suit schedule premises in the respondents and the taking of the suit premises on lease by the petitioners is not disputed, huge investment was made with the understanding that the part of it would be adjusted towards rents. He submits that once there is a dispute about the actual liability to pay the rents, the matter must be relegated to the stage of the trial and hearing of the suit as provided for under Order XV-A C.P.C. He further submits that huge amounts of advance are given to the respondents and that the trial Court did not take the same into account. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in K. Zakria Shaik v. K. Saleem Basha.
Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that except the rent for one month
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.