Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Mehmood Sherriff At Mehmoodulla Sheriff – Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Mohammed Azazur Rehman – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 770 Of 2024
Decided On : 23-08-2024
Eviction - Civil Procedure - Article 227 - The court interpreted the lease agreements and the obligations of the parties, concluding that the petitioner was liable for a reduced rent amount based on the terms of the lease.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a defendant in a suit for eviction, challenged a trial court's order directing him to pay Rs.20,000/- per month as rent, claiming he was only liable for Rs.9,800/- based on the lease agreements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in determining the rent amount and that the petitioner was liable to pay Rs.9,800/- per month for the period of the lease, not Rs.20,000/- as ordered.
Issues: Whether the trial court correctly determined the rent amount owed by the petitioner based on the lease agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the terms of the lease agreements clearly indicated the rent amount, and the trial court's order was inconsistent with those terms.
Result: The petition was disposed of, modifying the trial court's order to reflect a rent of Rs.9,800/- per month.
ORDER :
(Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.) :
1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order in I.A.No.555 of 2021 in O.S.No.43 of 2021 dated 09.02.2024 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties will hereinafter be referred as referred before the Trial Court.
3. The petitioner herein is the second defendant in O.S.No.43 of 2021. The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed O.S.No.43 of 2021 for eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule property, besides claiming recovery of arrears of rent from the month of April, 2019 onwards till the end of October, 2019 @ Rs.20,000/- per month for 7 months commencing from April, 2019 onwards till the end of October, 2019, amounting to Rs.1,40,000/- and also claimed use and occupation damages amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- from September, 2019 to March, 2020.
4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.555 of 2021 in O.S.No.43 of 2021 to direct the respondents therein to pay Rs.1,40,000/- towards arrears of rent from April, 2019, till the end of October, 2019 @ Rs.20,000/- per month and also to pay Rs.50,000/- tentatively per month from November, 2019 onwards.
5. Upon hearing both the parties, the Trial Court partly allowed I.A.No.555 of 2021 in O.S.No.43 of 2021 on 09.02.2024, the operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, admittedly, the first respondent is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property of O.S.No.43 of 2021 and O.S.No.123 of 2021. Further, the said vacant land was parted in favour of the second respondent as well as the petitioner through separate unregistered lease deeds dated 07.11.2008 and 30.11.2008 for a period of 11 months. As per the terms of the said lease deeds, the petitioner was granted lease in respect of Northern Part of the schedule property, agreeing to pay an amount of Rs.9,800/- per month on or before the 5th of succeeding month.
7. Similarly, first respondent also executed another lease deed in favour of the second respondent herein dated 07.11.2008 in respect of north east corner part of the suit schedule property for a period of 11 months i.e. upto 07.11.2008 to 06.10.2019 @ 9,800/- per month. He further submits that the petitioner has been paying monthly rent without any default and after completion of lease period, the first respondent renewed the lease for a period of 20 years. Accordingly, the petitioner has been continuing as lessee in respect of entire suit schedule property after expiry of lease in favour of the second respondent herein since no extension was granted. He submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the arrears payable from March, 2021 to April, 2022 i.e. for a period of 14 months @ Rs.9,800/- per month and to continue the admitted rent hereafter pending suit. He further submits that the Court below after believing the version of the first respondent, came to an erroneous conclusion and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- per month from April, 2019 to October, 2019, as prayed by the petitioner, as if the entire suit schedule property was leased out to the petitioner contrary to the fact that the second respondent is the lease holder for part of the schedule property for a period of 11 months from 11.07.2018 to 06.10.2019.
8. He further submits that, since the petitioner has spent Rs.12,00,000/- for development of the suit schedule property, since it is a pit of 8 feet depth, pu
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific terms of lease agreements in determining rental obligations.
Trial courts can direct payment of undisputed rents during pendency of eviction proceedings, while burdens of proof for claims made remain with the relevant parties.
The court upheld the Tribunal's order for payment of rent arrears under Order 15-A of CPC, emphasizing the necessity of summary enquiry for disputed amounts.
A landlord-tenant relationship must be acknowledged for the court to enforce rent deposits; mere denial does not negate the obligation to pay legally due rent.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to require rent deposits pending the resolution of conflicting property ownership claims, reaffirming the need for procedural compliance in civil proceedin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
