Order XV-A read with Section 94 (E) of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short "CPC"), with a prayer to direct the petitioner to deposit the rents into the Court at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month. -Through its order dated 09-11-2010, the lower appellate Court allowed the interlocutory application directing the petitioner to deposit the rents at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month. Respondents were permitted to withdraw half of the amount with security and half without security.= One of the requirements for a Court to pass an order under Order - XV-A of CPC is that there should not be any dispute as to quantum of rent or the liability to pay the same. In the instant case, rent was determined by the trial Court while disposing of the suit itself. - Petitioner pleaded that the rent, which was fixed at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month by the trial Court, was varied with the consent of the parties. That plea could have been accepted, if only, something in writing is placed before the lower appellate Court. No such effort was made. On the other hand, respondents flatly denied existence of any such arrangement. - Petitioner does not dispute that the respondents are owners of the property. The very purpose of requiring the tenant or lessee of a premises to deposit the rents pending disposal of the suits, is to avoid inconvenience and hardship to the owner. The condition requiring the respondents to furnish bank guarantee for withdrawal of half of the rents is certainly onerous.
PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9761
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CRP No.5990;6140 of 2010
28-03-2013
Smt. Gullapalli Vijayasree
Rednam Satyavathi and 2 others
Counsel for the petitioner:Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram
Counsel for the respondents: M.S.R. Subrahmanyam
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
?CASES REFERRED:
C 15
COMMON ORDER:
Both these revisions are between the same parties and against
the same order, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in
C.R.P. No.5990 of 2010.
3. Respondents are owners of a building situated at a commercial locality i.e.,
Rednam Gardens, Vishakapatnam. Petitioner is their tenant.
Respondents filed
O.S. No.985 of 2003 in the Court of
III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vishakapatnam, for
eviction of the petitioner and recovery of damages.
The trial Court decreed the
suit and determined the damages at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month.
Aggrieved
by that, petitioner preferred A.S. No.224 of 2010 in the Court of Principal
District Judge, Vishakapatnam.
Respondents filed I.A. No.2199 of 2010 in that
appeal under Order XV-A read with Section 94 (E) of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short "CPC"), with a prayer to direct the petitioner to deposit the rents into the Court at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month.
The application was
opposed by the petitioner.
He pleaded that though the trial Court determined
the damages at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month, there was an understanding
between him and the respondents for payment of rent at Rs.8,925/-.
Through its
order dated 09-11-2010, the lower appellate Court allowed the interlocutory
application directing the petitioner to deposit the rents at the rate of
Rs.21,000/- per month.
Respondents were permitted to withdraw half of the
amount with security and half without security.
4. Petitioner challenged the said order feeling aggrieved by the direction as
to deposit of rents. Respondents, on the other hand, filed C.R.P. No.6140 of
2010 feeling aggrieved by the condition as to furnishing bank guarantee for
withdrawal of half of the deposited
amount.
5. Heard Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. This is a typical case, where the facility provided for under Order - XV-A
of CPC was invoked at the stage of appeal.
It is not in dispute that in the
suit filed by the respondents for eviction and recovery of damages, no
application was filed under that provision during the pendency of the suit. It
was filed for the first time during the pendency of the appeal.
7. One of the requirements for a Court to pass an order under Order - XV-A of CPC is that there should not be any dispute as to quantum of rent or the liability to pay the same. In the instant case, rent was determined by the trial Court while disposing of the suit itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any dispute as to quantum of rent, though such determination was
subject to the right of appeal of the petitioner.
8. Petitioner pleaded that the rent, which was fixed at the rate of Rs.21,000/-
per month by the trial Court, was varied with the consent of the parties.
That
plea could have been accepted, if only, something in writing is placed before
the lower appellate Court. No such effort was made.
On the other hand,
respondents flatly denied existence of any such arrangement.
Hence, no
exception can be taken to the directions issued by the lower appellate Court for
deposit of the rents into the Court during the pendency of the appeal.
9. Therefore, C.R.P. No.5990 of 2010 is dismissed.
10. Petitioner does not dispute that the respondents are owners of the
property. The very purpose of requiring the tenant or lessee of a premises to
deposit the rents pending disposal of the suits, is to avoid inconvenience and
hardship to the owner. The condition requiring the respondents to furnish bank
guarantee for withdrawal of half of the rents is certainly onerous.
11. Therefore, C.R.P. No.6140 of 2010 is allowed and it is directed that the
respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited, in
compliance of the orders passed by the lower appellate Court in I.A. No.2199 of
2010, without furnishing any security. Three (03) months time is granted to the
petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent, if any.
12. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions filed in these revisions shall
stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
March 28, 2013.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CRP No.5990;6140 of 2010
28-03-2013
Smt. Gullapalli Vijayasree
Rednam Satyavathi and 2 others
Counsel for the petitioner:Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram
Counsel for the respondents: M.S.R. Subrahmanyam
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
?CASES REFERRED:
C 15
COMMON ORDER:
Both these revisions are between the same parties and against
the same order, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in
C.R.P. No.5990 of 2010.
3. Respondents are owners of a building situated at a commercial locality i.e.,
Rednam Gardens, Vishakapatnam. Petitioner is their tenant.
Respondents filed
O.S. No.985 of 2003 in the Court of
III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vishakapatnam, for
eviction of the petitioner and recovery of damages.
The trial Court decreed the
suit and determined the damages at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month.
Aggrieved
by that, petitioner preferred A.S. No.224 of 2010 in the Court of Principal
District Judge, Vishakapatnam.
Respondents filed I.A. No.2199 of 2010 in that
appeal under Order XV-A read with Section 94 (E) of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short "CPC"), with a prayer to direct the petitioner to deposit the rents into the Court at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month.
The application was
opposed by the petitioner.
He pleaded that though the trial Court determined
the damages at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per month, there was an understanding
between him and the respondents for payment of rent at Rs.8,925/-.
Through its
order dated 09-11-2010, the lower appellate Court allowed the interlocutory
application directing the petitioner to deposit the rents at the rate of
Rs.21,000/- per month.
Respondents were permitted to withdraw half of the
amount with security and half without security.
4. Petitioner challenged the said order feeling aggrieved by the direction as
to deposit of rents. Respondents, on the other hand, filed C.R.P. No.6140 of
2010 feeling aggrieved by the condition as to furnishing bank guarantee for
withdrawal of half of the deposited
amount.
5. Heard Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. This is a typical case, where the facility provided for under Order - XV-A
of CPC was invoked at the stage of appeal.
It is not in dispute that in the
suit filed by the respondents for eviction and recovery of damages, no
application was filed under that provision during the pendency of the suit. It
was filed for the first time during the pendency of the appeal.
7. One of the requirements for a Court to pass an order under Order - XV-A of CPC is that there should not be any dispute as to quantum of rent or the liability to pay the same. In the instant case, rent was determined by the trial Court while disposing of the suit itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any dispute as to quantum of rent, though such determination was
subject to the right of appeal of the petitioner.
8. Petitioner pleaded that the rent, which was fixed at the rate of Rs.21,000/-
per month by the trial Court, was varied with the consent of the parties.
That
plea could have been accepted, if only, something in writing is placed before
the lower appellate Court. No such effort was made.
On the other hand,
respondents flatly denied existence of any such arrangement.
Hence, no
exception can be taken to the directions issued by the lower appellate Court for
deposit of the rents into the Court during the pendency of the appeal.
9. Therefore, C.R.P. No.5990 of 2010 is dismissed.
10. Petitioner does not dispute that the respondents are owners of the
property. The very purpose of requiring the tenant or lessee of a premises to
deposit the rents pending disposal of the suits, is to avoid inconvenience and
hardship to the owner. The condition requiring the respondents to furnish bank
guarantee for withdrawal of half of the rents is certainly onerous.
11. Therefore, C.R.P. No.6140 of 2010 is allowed and it is directed that the
respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited, in
compliance of the orders passed by the lower appellate Court in I.A. No.2199 of
2010, without furnishing any security. Three (03) months time is granted to the
petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent, if any.
12. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions filed in these revisions shall
stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
March 28, 2013.
Comments
Post a Comment