ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 10.06.2021 allowing the petition against R.1 in I.A.No.657 of 2020 in O.S.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Kurnool, filed by the plaintiff under Order XV-A and Section 151 CPC to strike-off the defence of the defendants.

2. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit against the revision petitioner/D1 and the respondents No.2 to 4 herein/D2 to D.4 for eviction from the suit schedule property and directing them to handover possession of plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and in the event of defendants not vacating the premises, to get the possession of plaint schedule property through the process of law and to grant decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the 1st defendant for damages of Rs.18,88,155/- and damages at the rate of Rs.1,96,650/- per month from the date of filing of the suit.

3. Case of plaintiff, in brief, is as follows :-

The plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. D1 was a tenant of the suit schedule property from 19.10.2007 for a period of five years on a monthly rent of ground floor at Rs.12,000/- and first floor at Rs.15,000/-. D1 is not authorized by the plaintiff to sub-let the property, but D1 sub-let the shops No.1 and 2 of item No.1 of schedule property to D2 and shop No.7 of item No.1 of plaint schedule property to D.3 and shop No.8 of item No.1 of schedule property to D.4. After expiry of lease period, the plaintiff wrote letters dated 15.05.2012 to D.1 to handover the vacant possession of the property on the date of expiry of the lease, expressing disinclination to extend the lease after expiry of the period. There is no response to the letter for five months. Finally, D.1 got issued legal notice dated 12.10.2012 admitting the expiry of lease period and claiming right of renewal and demanding it. The plaintiff declined it. However, D.1 is resisting the effort of the governing body of the plaintiff to get the property vacated on the ground that there is a registered lease agreement dated 19.06.2007 executed by Sri G.Swaminath on behalf of the plaintiff leasing out the suit schedule property to D.1 for 25 years. The plaintiff did not authorize Sri G.Swaminath to execute any such lease deed. Only the President of the plaintiff is authorized by the governing body to deal with the immovable property of the plaintiff. D.2 to D.4 who are claiming under D.1 have no right to remain in possession of the property from 19.10.2012. The plaintiff did not receive the amount sent by D.1 subsequent to expiry of the lease period. Therefore, D.1 sent cheques every month. The plaintiff encashed them towards damages and use of the plaint schedule property. The schedule property fetches rent @ Rs.1,96,650/- per month as per the rental value prevailing in its vicinity. The total amount paid by D.1 after 19.10.2012 is Rs.2,16,000/-, whereas the total damages payable by D1 till 09.09.2013 is Rs.21,04,155/- and therefore, after adjusting the amount paid, the balance amount of damages payable is Rs.18,88,155/-. The suit was filed on 11.09.2013.

4. The written statement contents are briefly as follows : It is denied that D1 is the tenant of plaint schedule property from 19.10.2007 for the period of five years. It is true that the monthly rent agreed upon for the ground floor is Rs.12,000/- and for first floor Rs.15,000/- and that D1 issued notice dated 12.10.2012. All the other averments in the plaint are denied. When the plaint schedule property fell vacant on the Syndicate Bank, Kurnool vacated it as not located in busy commercial area, and D1 approached the plaintiff society, its the then office bearers directed D1 to approach Rev Swaminath who was its the then Procreator and Chancellor and authorized agent of the then Bishop and Predecessor in office of the present representative of the plaintiff. As per the Rules and the regulations of the society, D1 wa