C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1864 and 1889 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 20/6/2023

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

Civil Revision Petition NPD Nos.1864 and 1889 of 2022

a n d

C.M.P.No.9515 of 2022

Heritage Foods (India) Ltd

rep. By its Vice President

Mr.K.Durga Prasad Rao

No.6-3-541 C Panjagutta

Hyderabad 500 082.

...

Petitioner in both the

petitions

Vs

1. C. Srinivasan

...

Respondent in both the

petitions

2. P.M.Shansuddin

3. Akbar Ali

...

Second and third

respondent in C.R.P.

PD.No.1889 of 2022

Prayer in CRP NPD No.1864 of 2022: Petition filed under Article 227

of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree dated

22/12/2021 made in C.M.A.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the Principal

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1864 and 1889 of 2022

Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the fair and decreetal order,

dated 2/11/2019 made in I.A.No.5 of 2019 in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 215 on

the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.

Prayer in CRP NPD No.1889 of 2022: Petition filed under Article 227

of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree dated

22/12/2021 made in R.C.A.No.4 of 2020, on the file of the Principal

Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the fair and decreetal order,

dated 25/11/2019 made in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 215 on the file of the District

Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.

For Petitioner

...

Mr.S.Mukundh

Senior Advocate

For respondents

...

Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar

for R.1

No appearance

for R.R.2 and 3

- - - - -

C O M M O N O R D E R

Civil Revision Petition No.1864 of 2022 is filed seeking to set aside

the orders passed in C.M.A.No.3 of 2020 dated 22/12/2021 on the file of

the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, reversing the order, dated

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1864 and 1889 of 2022

2/11/2019 made in I.A.No.5 of 2019 in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2015, on the

file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.1889 of 2022 is filed seeking to set

aside the orders passed in R.C.A.No.4 of 2020 on the file of the Principal

Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, which has reversed the order passed in

R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2015, dated 25/11/2009.

3. Since both the matters are arising between the same parties, both

of them are being disposed of by way of a common order.

4. The first respondent is the owner of the schedule premises bearing

S.F.No.61/3 situated at Veppanapalli Village, Krishnagiri District,

measuring an extent of 0.41 cents and 1443 sq.ft built up sq.feet. The

said premises was leased out, in favour of the petitioner Company,

represented by its Vice President. The first respondent has filed

R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2015, on the file of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri,

seeking a direction to the petitioner Company to pay a sum of Rs.19

lakhs to him towards arrears of rent and to pay a monthly rent of

Rs.50,000/- from May 2015 onwards.

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1864 and 1889 of 2022

5. The respondents have filed counter denying all the allegations of

the petitioner.

6. The first respondent during the pendency of R.C.O.P.No.11 of

2015 has filed I.A.No.5 of 2019, under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu

Buildings Least and Rent Control Act, 1960, to direct the

petitioner/respondent, to deposit the monthly rent to the tune of

Rs.44,50,000/- with interest and for an order to continue to deposit

Rs.50,000/- from the month of August 2019. The said I.A.No.5 of 2019

was allowed, directing the petitioner Company to deposit Rs.44,50,000/-,

in the Court towards arrears of rent on or before 22/11/2019 and

continued to deposit Rs.50,000/- p.m., on or before 5^th of every English

Calendar month. It is also observed that in case, if the petitioner

Company fails to deposit Rs.50,000/- every month, all further

proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.11 of