IMPORTANT POINT
Order XV(A) CPC requires an admission of the landlord-tenant relationship for its applicability; disputes over this relationship preclude its enforcement.

ORDER :

1. Challenge in this C.R.P. is to the order dated 21.08.2023 in I.A. No. 215/2022 in O.S. No. 275/2021 passed by learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XV(A) r/w 151 CPC praying the Court to direct the respondent/defendant to pay admitted monthly rents due from 01.02.2021 to 28.02.2022 @ Rs.1,80,000/- per month.

2. The factual matrix of the case which led to file the instant C.R.P. is thus:

(a) The petitioner filed the suit for eviction of respondent from the suit schedule property and to deliver the vacant possession of the same and direct the respondent to pay Rs.6,00,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till the date of handing over the vacant possession to the petitioner.

(b) According to the petitioner, the respondent is his tenant and he has taken the suit schedule property on lease for running the hospital by name Adithya Multi Care Hospital. He was inducted tenancy in the year 2012. The agreed rent was Rs.2,00,000/- per month and the respondent has paid rents only Rs.18,000/- till 11.11.2020. Subsequently, both parties entered into unregistered lease deeds dated 29.03.2012, 01.03.2013, 10.10.2014, 02.11.2015, 24.10.2016, 06.12.2018 and 12.12.2019. The original lease period was expired on 11.11.2020 and the respondent cleared the monthly rent @ Rs.1,80,000/- till 31.01.2021. The petitioner issued Quit Notice dated 04.09.2018 for which the respondent issued reply notice. Again the petitioner issued Quit Notice on 24.07.2020 but the respondent did not respond. Thereafter, on 31.07.2020 the respondent has sent a reply notice along with demand draft for Rs.1,62,000/- which was given credit as part payment of rental arrears, but not as monthly installments. The petitioner claimed that he never offered the suit schedule property to sell to respondent or anybody. Finally, the petitioner issued Quit Notice dated 28.06.2021 to vacate the plaint schedule property and to pay arrears of enhanced rents, is of no use.

(c) Respondent opposed the plaintiff’s case, his version is that he is the Managing Director of M/s Adithya Multi Care Hospital and he entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff and paid an advance amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and thereafter paid equated monthly installments regularly. However, by twisting the facts, the plaintiff filed the case. There is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. The plaintiff is obligated to receive the balance sale consideration by executing registered sale deed in favour of the respondent. However, in order to escape from his legal liability, the plaintiff filed the present suit. The petition is not maintainable under Order XV(A) CPC because the defendant denied the landlord and tenant relationship.

(d) The trial court having considered the respective pleas of the parties and applying the same to order XV(A) CPC and also considering the earlier suits pending between the parties, has held that the defendant is seriously disputing the quantum of arrears as well as the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. The trial court has held that it is the specific contention of the defendant that he has purchased the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff for Rs.5,25,00,000/- and the plaintiff made a proposal that the sale consideration has to be paid by way of monthly installments along with future interest and thus the total amount comes approximately to rupees 10 crores over a period of 220 months and the payments were made from January, 2018. The trial court thus held that there is a serious dispute regarding the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and as the jural relationship itself is the issue, it has to be decided after full-fledged trial and therefore, petitioner cannot seek for a direction to the respondent under Order XV(A) CPC to deposit arrears of alleged rent. The trial court accordingly dismissed the petition.

Hence, the C.R.P.

3. H