Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(AP) 188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
Ideal College of Arts and Science, through its Governing Body, rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, East Godavari District - Petitioner
Versus
Medical Education Society (Regn.No.15/1958), rep. by its President, Kakinada - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 291 of 2022
Decided On : 27-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, Learned Senior Counsel.
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Chidambaram.

Point of Law : plea regarding exercise of due diligence and necessity of seeking amendment of written statement are conspicuously absent. Under such circumstances, the question of exercising due diligence or discharge of burden on the part of petitioner/defendant to the satisfaction or conclusion of the Court would not arise.

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order VI, Rule 17 and Section 151 - Resolution - Possession of Property - Damages - seeking a decree - Seeking amendment of written statement - Respondent/plaintiff-society filed suit against petitioner/defendant-society seeking a decree in its favour and against the petitioner/defendant-society physical possession of plaint schedule property after evicting defendant to award past damages interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till date of realization award future damages at rate per month from the date of the suit till date of delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to plaintiff - Plaintiff-society is owner of property popularly called as “Simpson Building”, particulars of which are fully described in plaint schedule request of petitioner/defendant-society, it gave license over the said property to petitioner/defendant-society to run colleges and later leased it out to petitioner/defendant-society at an annual rent – plea regarding exercise of due diligence and necessity of seeking amendment of written statement are conspicuously absent. Under such circumstances, the question of exercising due diligence or discharge of burden on the part of petitioner/defendant to the satisfaction or conclusion of the Court would not arise. (Para 24)
Finding of the Court:
Allegations in the Plaint that lease came letter reply notice may be read as part of this Written Statement - It is humbly submit that as per resolutions passed by Plaintiff’s Society lease was extended and the Plaintiff has to execute a Registered lease deed in favour of Plaintiff’s Society as per resolutions passed by he Plaintiff’s Society. Plaintiff’s Society having full knowledge of the resolutions passed by the society suppressed the said resolution and filed suit with false allegations defendant has written a letter that the Plaintiff’s Society has to extend the lease period - Plaintiff suppressed resolution passed from time to time wherein it is clearly mentioned that the lease was extended in favour of the Defendant Society and a separate lease has to be executed in favour of Defendant’s Society. Purposefully, the Plaintiff filed the suit without filing the resolution books before Hon’ble Court - amendment sought for is not necessary for determining the real issue in controversy, and even assuming that same is necessary, unless petitioner/defendant satisfies that in spite of due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial - Court is of considered opinion that impugned Order rejecting the application seeking amendment of Written Statement need not be interfered with as the same does not suffer any irregularity or perversity.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed

ORDER :

The present Revision Petition has been preferred against the Orders dated 20.01.2022 in I.A.No.14 of 2022 in O.S.No.108 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

2. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the above referred suit. The respondent/plaintiff-society filed the suit against the petitioner/defendant-society seeking a decree in its favour and against the petitioner/defendant-society; a) for physical possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting the defendant therefrom; b) to award past damages of Rs.46,00,000/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization; c) to award future damages at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per month from the date of the suit till date of the delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff; d) to award costs of the suit; and e) to grant such other reliefs.

4. The case of the respondent/plaintiff-society as set out in the plaint in brief, may be narrated for better appreciation of the issues.

5. The plaintiff-society is the owner of property popularly called as “Simpson Building”, the particulars of which are fully described in the plaint schedule. At the request of the petitioner/defendant-society, it gave license over the said property to the petitioner/defendant-society to run colleges and later leased it out to the petitioner/defendant-society at an annual rent of Rs.2,000/-. Subsequently, the rent was increased to Rs.12,000/- per annum. Though the property is extensive, it was leased out for nominal amount, as the objectives of the respondent-society and the petitioner-society are similar. On 1st July, 1981, the respondent and the petitioner came to an understanding that the lease is to be for a period of 30 years. The petitioner/defendant entered into possession of the plaint schedule property, as lessee, continued and began to run Ideal College of Arts and Sciences. As the said lease came to an end by the end of 30 years period by March, 2013, the petitioner/defendant has no right to continue in possession of the plaint schedule property, and as the respondent/plaintiff-society was contemplating to start Para-medical institutions in the property in question, the petitioner/defendant-society was requested to handover the property. However, the petitioner/defendant addressed a letter dated 17.04.2013 to the respondent/plaintiff enclosing a cheque dated 17.04.2013 for Rs.12,000/- towards the rent for the year 2012-2013 with a request to execute regular lease deed for another period of 30 years. The respondent/plaintiff got issued a reply dated 17.05.2013 stating inter alia that it is not prepared to lease out the plaint schedule property and returned the cheque. The petitioner/defendant then got issued notice dated 30.05.2013 stating that the plaint schedule property comes under A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, that it had spent Crores of Rupees on the buildings constructed in the schedule property and that the respondent/plaintiff has been promising to pay the said amounts from time to time along with other claims.

6. Against the backdrop of the above stated position, the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit on 26.03.2015, seeking the reliefs as mentioned supra.

7. On 30.08.2015, the petitioner/defendant-society filed its written statement inter alia stating that the suit as laid by the respondent/plaintiff-society is not maintainable in Law. While admitting that the petitioner/defendant is a tenant in possession of the property, it was averred that the plaint schedule property is not correct, as part of the same was acquired by the Government. Denying the statement that the lease came to an end by the end of March, 2013 was absolutely false, it was pleaded that as per the reso