K. NAGESWARA RAO Vs. SIDDA MURTHY MADHAVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dtd. 2/9/2021 passed in I.A.No.399 of 2020 in O.S.No.117 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 15-A read with Sec. 151 CPC seeking a direction to the second Respondent-second defendant to deposit Rs.2,40,000.00 per month being rent was dismissed.

(2.) K.Nageswara Rao-plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.117 of 2019 against Sidda Murthy Madhava Reddy-first defendant and Komma Sreekanth Reddy-second defendant seeking eviction, recovery of arrears and mesne profits. Plaintiff submitted that he is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property and he purchased the said property from the first defendant vide registered sale deed bearing Document No.1073 of 2015 and thereafter the first defendant requested the plaintiff to give the suit schedule property on lease. Accordingly, the plaintiff leased out the suit schedule property to the first defendant on 10/10/2015 for a period of three years on a monthly rent of Rs.2,00,000.00 with enhancement at the rate of 5% per annum and presently the rent amount is Rs.2,20,500.00 per month. Since the first defendant is not paying the rent from December, 2017, the plaintiff conducted a panchayat before the elders in May, 2018 and wherein the plaintiff demanded the first defendant to vacate the premises and also to pay arrears of rent, for which the first defendant requested the plaintiff to give two months time and again in July, 2018 the first defendant executed an undertaking-cum-declaration in favour of the plaintiff stating that he will vacate the premises on or before 1/10/2018 and also agreed to pay the arrears of rent. But the first defendant failed to comply with the same and hence the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 15/10/2018 to the first defendant seeking vacation of the property. A reply notice was given by the first defendant on 6/11/2018 stating that he had sublet the premises to the second defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.2,40,000.00 from 1/5/2017 to 1/4/2018 for a period of eleven months and the second defendant is not paying rents from October, 2017 to till date and the second defendant also filed suit O.S.No.615 of 2018 on the file of the learned VIII Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, seeking perpetual injunction against the first defendant and as such he cannot handover possession. The plaintiff would submit that the first defendant sublet the premises without his permission and both of them colluded for wrongful gain and thus he filed the present suit seeking the above reliefs. By way of an amendment in I.A.No.1209 of 2019 dtd. 6/8/2019 the plaintiff inserted the relief of recovery of rents @ Rs.2,40,000.00 per month from October 2017 to June 2019 for twenty one months.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the second defendant he stated that he was set ex parte on 25/3/2019 and the said order was set aside in I.A.No.2915 of 2019 dtd. 30/12/2020. The second defendant would further state that the present suit is filed on 27/11/2018 and the court fee paid on 19/8/2019. The first defendant and the plaintiff played fraud on the Court and submitted some documents along with an undertaking and sought for decree of eviction, but the said suit for eviction is not maintainable unless the plaintiff seeks for a declaration of title from the competent Court. The second defendant would submit that there is no proof regarding landlord and tenant relationship between the second defendant and the plaintiff and this defendant is not a tenant of the plaintiff and it is not the case of the plaintiff that he is his tenant and therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek relief against the second defendant. The second defendant also disputed the lease deed on the ground that it requires stamp duty and penalty and requested the Court to dismiss the suit. During the pendency of the suit proceedings the plaintiff filed an application I.A.No.399 of 2020 praying the Court to direct the second defendant to deposit the admitted rent of Rs.2,40,000.00 per month from October, 2017 and to continue to pay the same till the disposal of the suit, failing which his defence may be struck off.