ABDUL KHALID Vs. A.RAVINDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-respondentdefendant aggrieved by the order dtd. 29/3/2019 passed in I.A.No.163 of 2018 in O.S.No.16 of 2018 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District.

(2.) The respondent - plaintiff filed O.S. No.16 of 2018 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent to an amount of Rs.22,21,890.00 from 1/3/2015 to 1/7/2018. The suit schedule property is stated to be a building, in which a restaurant by name New Taj Palace was being run along with two shops situated in ground floor of the said restaurant building with two shutters. The rent was claimed @ Rs.55,400.00 per month from 1/3/2015 to 1/3/2018 and @ Rs.75,830.00 per month from 1/3/2018 to 1/7/2018. Along with the said suit, the respondent - plaintiff filed I.A.No.163 of 2018 under Order XV-A Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC to direct the petitioner - respondent - defendant to pay an amount of Rs.22,21,890.00 towards arrears of rent. Along with the petition, the respondent - plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that he entered into a lease agreement with the respondent - defendant on 1/1/2012 for leasing the restaurant by name New Taj Palace restaurant and on 1/3/2012 for leasing the two shops in the ground floor for a period of three years for an amount of Rs.5,000.00 per month and to enhance the rent @ 36 % per annum on renewal of the said agreements. He further submitted that the lease period expired on 1/1/2015. He requested the respondent-defendant to vacate the premises. But the respondent - defendant postponed the same and was not paying the rents. As the respondent-defendant was selling tobacco products as against the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement and was not paying the enhanced rents from the year 2015 as per the original agreement, an FIR was registered by Undavalli Police vide FIR No.116 of 2018 dtd. 20/6/2018 on the complaint given by him about his illegal business of selling tobacco products against the respondent - defendant under Ss. 188, 273 IPC and Sec. 20(2) of CTPTARTCPSD, and the respondent - defendant was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur. He also made a request to the electrical authorities to disconnect the power supply. Legal notice was issued to the respondent - defendant calling upon to vacate the suit schedule premises by 31/7/2018. But the respondent - defendant did not come forward to vacate the schedule premises or renewal of the lease deed or to pay the enhanced rent @ Rs.75,830.00 per month. The respondent - defendant deposited one month rent into his account for the month of July, 2018 on 4/8/2018. The respondent - defendant filed W.P.No.25386 of 2018 on 20/7/2018 against the landlord - plaintiff and the electrical authorities seeking restoration of power supply, which was disconnected on 7/7/2018, the High Court was not inclined to pass any interim orders, but admitted the Writ Petition. The respondent - defendant being the tenant of the suit premises was bound to pay rent till eviction of property. As per Order XV Rule 2, the respondent - defendant was under obligation to deposit the arrears of rent within the time stipulated by the Court and if the respondent - defendant committed default in making the deposits, as ordered by the Court, the Court should strike off the defence and on failure of the respondent - defendant to comply the said order, prayed to forfeit the right of the respondent - defendant to contest the matter.

(3.) The respondent - defendant filed counter admitting the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and entering into an agreement with the plaintiff for running the hotel business on 6/7/2011 at the rent of Rs.30,000.00 per month and that the plaintiff received an amount of Rs.9,00,000.00 towards advance and another agreement was executed on 1/1/2012 in respect of two shops for a period of three years and received an amount of Rs.30,000.00 per month towards rent for a period of six months and that he agreed to continue tenancy by way of enhancing the rent at 36% per annum. However, he contended that he had never violated the terms mentioned in the agreement and was paying the agreed rents to the plaintiff within first week of every month under proper receipts without fail. The plaintiff never demanded him to vacate the suit schedule premises. On the evil advice of neighboring business holder, the petitioner - plaintiff lodged a false report before the Station House Officer (for short "SHO") of PS Undavalli. The respondent - defendant was never selling the prohibited products at any point of time. After conducting enquiry, the police personal gave a report that the respondent - defendant was not selling the tobacco products in the suit schedule premises shops. The petitioner - plaintiff sent a false application to electrical authorities to disconnect the power supply to the premises with an intention to pressurize the respondent - defendant to vacate the premises illegally, even though the respondent - defendant had not committed any mistake in payment of electricity bills. He also stated that he was paying rents every month regularly without any delay under proper receipts and that he filed the original receipts pertaining to the payment of rents to the respondent - petitioner to prove his bonafides. He also stated that he received the legal notice issued by the petitioner - plaintiff dtd. 21/7/2018 and that he gave a suitable reply on 30/7/2018 by mentioning the real facts. He also paid the electricity bills regularly each and every month promptly and that he enclosed the electricity bills. He also stated that he was paying the enhanced monthly rents to the petitioner - plaintiff as agreed by him in the agreement and that he was having no dues. He stated that he filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court to reinstate the power supply and that the petitioner - plaintiff filed a false criminal case against him to harass him. He further stated that in collusion with the neighboring hotel management of Baba Ramdev Daba, the petitioner - plaintiff got closed the drain by filling it with concrete, due to which the drain was blocked and the respondent - defendant was suffering lot of inconvenience in conducting his business affairs. He further stated that the petitioner - plaintiff had given remaining portion of his building to another person, who opened another hotel in the name and style as Sri Sai Hotel.