The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can direct the defendants to deposit arrears of rent based on the terms of the lease agreement, and a petition to reopen a case must be maintainable with the correct cause title.

ORDER :

CRP No.868 of 2022 is filed by defendant No.1 against order date 22.03.2022 in I.A.No.1012 of 2016 in O.S.No.118 of 2012 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur.

2. CRP No.577 of 2022 is filed by defendant No.1 (as per unamended cause title) aggrieved by the action in not receiving petition filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen I.A.No.1012 of 2016 in O.S.No.118 of 2012 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein being plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.118 of 2012 against petitioner/defendant No.1 and other respondents/defendants seeking their eviction from the plaint schedule premises and further to direct the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- towards use and unauthorized occupation of the suit schedule premises and also to direct the defendants to pay arrears of rents from 01.04.2007.

4. Originally the suit was filed against Aditya Motors represented by P.D. Prasad. Later, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.237 of 2018 seeking amendment of defendant No.1 and the same was allowed by order dated 28.03.2018. By virtue of amendment, defendant No.1 was described as Pilli Durga Prasad, S/o Varahala Rao, Rep. of Aditya Motors.

5. In the plaint, it was contended that plaintiffs are owners of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 approached plaintiff No.1 with a request to lease out the suit schedule property. Accordingly, on 13.04.2005, defendant No.1 entered into a lease agreement with plaintiff No.1 and the same was registered as document No.5120 of 2005. Without the consent of plaintiffs, defendant No.1 inducted defendant No.2 into the suit schedule premises and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are Directors of defendant No.2 company. Defendant No.1 never acted as per the agreement. Defendant No.1 is continuing in the premises even after lapse of the agreement and in fact, violated conditions of the lease agreement. As per clause 11 of the lease agreement soon after completion of the lease period, defendant No.1 agreed to vacate the premises and deliver physical possession. The other condition is that defendant No.1 agreed to increase the rent by 10% after lapse of first two years, but it did not do so. Defendants have no right over the suit schedule premises. On 16.12.2011 a quit notice was issued by the plaintiffs. Defendants, though acknowledged the notice, did not vacate the premises. With these averments, in brief, suit was filed for the reliefs stated supra.

6. Pending the suit, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.611 of 2013 under Order XV-A and Section 151 of CPC to direct the defendants to deposit admitted rent and damages into the Court and to strike off defence of the respondents in the event of their non-deposit of admitted arrears of rent and damages. Later the I.A. was renumbered as I.A.No.1012 of 2016.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that defendants took the suit schedule premises on lease on 13.04.2005 on a monthly rent of Rs.41,500/-. They agreed to enhance the rent at the rate of 10% on the existing rent for every two years and also agreed to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property on 31.03.2010. Defendants paid admitted rent till 31.03.2010 without paying the enhanced rent as per lease deed. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 were set ex parte and defendant No.3 is contesting the suit by filing written statement without depositing arrears of admitted rent and damages for their unauthorized use and occupation. Hence, the application was filed.

8. Defendant No.3 filed counter and opposed the application. In the counter, it was contended that plaintiffs made discussions with defendant No.1-Proprietor and agreed to let out suit schedule premises for nine years with renewal of further period of nine years. As per the understanding plaintiff No.1, on behalf of plaintiff No.2 gave letter of offer, dated 28.01.2005 signed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of Proprietor of defendant No.1. After several sittings, parties came to underst