JAYABHARAT AUTOMOBILES Vs. V S V RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition virtually relates to an order passed by the trial Court in a petition filed under Order XV-A C.P.C. directing the 1st defendant to deposit Rs. 5,11,000/- towards arrears of rent before a specified date together with depositing of current rents every month into Court. Against the said order, the 1st defendant filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the lower appellate Court which Court dismissed the same holding that the said miscellaneous appeal is not maintainable. The lower appellate Court did not give any finding on merits under Order XV-A C.P.C. Questioning the same, the 1st defendant filed this revision petition. Both the counsel before this Court submitted arguments on merits under Order XV-A C.P.C. The plaintiff/respondent filed the suit in the trial Court for eviction of the defendants 1 and 3 from the schedule property. No other relief is claimed in the suit. It is the plaintiffs case that one Gali Chandrakumari who is wife of the 2nd defendant approached the plaintiff and obtained lease of the suit property on rent of Rs. 7,000/- per month and that the 1st defendant who is dealer in Hero Honda Motor Cycles, accordingly took possession of the premisis in the year 1988 and that the tenancy was upto 31.03.1994 and that the 1st defendant committed default in payment of rents from February, 1994 onwards. It is further alleged that after issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 terminating tenancy, for which there was no reply, the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 142 of 1994 in the Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Guntur for eviction, arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation and that the 1st defendant filed written statement therein. It was alleged that power of attorney holder of the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit premisis to the 4th defendant who is partner of the 1st defendant firm for Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the plaintiff filed a petition in that previous suit to direct the 1st defendant to deposit arrears of rent and also rent pending that suit and that the 1st defendant filed a forged letter of the plaintiff's power of attorney agent dated 08.03.1994 in the suit to the effect that the schedule property was sold to the 4th defendant by a contract for sale dated 08.03.1994 and that therefore, the 1st defendant should pay the rent to the 4th defendant and that the 1st defendant has been paying rents to the 4th defendant. According to the plaintiff, the said I.A. in the previous suit was dismissed by the trial Court and when questioned the same in this High Court, this Court in C.R.P. No. 4216 of 1997 allowed the same directing the 1st defendant to deposit Rs. 84,000/- and continue to pay rent pending the suit into Court, by order dated 01.02.1999; but the 1st defendant did not obey the said order. It is further alleged that after trial, the previous suit was dismissed in so far as relief of eviction is concerned, but decreed for damages for use and occupation at Rs. 10,000/- per month. Both the parties filed appeals against the said decree passed in the previous suit and those appeals are pending and that without prejudice to contentions of the plaintiff in the previous suit and the appeal filed by him thereon, the plaintiff was advised to file the present suit for the above relief. It is further alleged in the present suit that the 1st defendant being a tenant inducted by the plaintiff into the schedule premisis, without surrendering the property to the plaintiff, attorned admittedly to the 4th defendant, denying title of the plaintiff to the schedule property and therefore forfeited right to continue as a tenant under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Pending the present suit in the trial Court, the plaintiff filed petition under Order XV-A C.P.C. for direction to the 1st defendant to deposit Rs. 9,24,000/- before filing written statement. The trial Court passed order allowing the petition directing the 1st defendant to deposit Rs. 5,11,000/- towards arrears of rent on or before 10.06.2009 and to deposit the rent for every month into Court on or before 10th of every succeeding month.

(2.) It is contention of the 1st defendant that the 1st defendant is not tenant of the plaintiff since December, 1995 as it vacated the suit premisis on 30.12.1995 and it was clearly pleaded in the previous suit in O.S. No. 142 of 1994 itself that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and that therefore, the petition under Order XV-A C.P.C. is not maintainable as arrears of rent are not undisputed and admitted.

(3.) In this revision petition, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant that the trial Court refused to receive written statement filed by the 1st defendant in view of Rule 1 of Order XV-A C.P.C. It is contended that when according to the 1st defendant, he vacated the suit premisis on 30.12.1995 and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is also contended that it is only undisputed or admitted arrears which are to be deposited by the undisputed tenant under Order XV-A C.P.C. and therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is unsustainable in law. According to the petitioner's counsel, the person who is in occupation of the suit premisis is the 3rd defendant viz., Associated Automobiles Private Limited represented by its Managing Director G.C. Benerji. On the other hand, it is pointed out by counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the said G.C. Benerji is no other than husband of the 1st defendant's partner Gali Chandrakumari. According to the 1st defendant, after surrender of the premisis to the 4th defendant by name Ch. Rama Rao who purchased the suit property from the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant took possession of the suit premisis from the 4th defendant. According to the 1st defendant, since the 1st defendant is not in possession of the suit property, eviction suit against the 1st defendant is not maintainable.