THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1265 of 2014 DATED: 08.08.2014 Between:
Ch. Murali and others. and Karshak Vidya Parishad and another.
.. Petitioners .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. K. Raghuveer Reddy Counsel for the respondents: None appeared This Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 03.03.2014 in I.A.No.634 of 2013 in O.S.No.373 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
On 08.07.2014, this Court has ordered notices to the respondents, while permitting personal service. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo, wherein he has stated that the personal notices sent to the respondents have been returned by the postal department with the endorsement “unclaimed”. Along with the memo, the two returned postal covers have been filed which show that they were returned with the endorsement “unclaimed”. In view of the same, there is deemed service of notice on the respondents.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
The petitioners filed O.S.No.373 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for multiple reliefs including for eviction of the respondents from the extent of 10,875 sq.ft. of property over the land admeasuring 872 square yards in Sy.No.1 of Parvathapur Village and Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, and also for a decree for payment of arrears of rent together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and for award of damages at the rate of Rs.1,30,000/- from March 2013 till recovery of physical possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.634 of 2013 under Order XVA Rule 1 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for a direction to the respondents to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs.13,71,496/- and for a further direction to deposit monthly rent of Rs.1,30,000/- from March 2013 onwards.
On behalf of the respondents, the Secretary of respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was averred that respondent No.1 is a registered educational society, that respondent No.2 is a college run by respondent No.1, that respondent No.1 society is not a defaulter as it has been paying rents regularly without any default and that the claim of interest to the tune of Rs.57,813/- is without any basis. The counter-affidavit also disputed the claim of the petitioners for damages at the rate of Rs.1,30,000/- per month. The deponent of the counter- affidavit has filed an additional counter-affidavit, wherein he has inter alia stated as under:
“It is submitted that admitted rents could not be paid for the months of July 2010 to May 2012, i.e. a sum of Rs.15,41,870/- due to various reasons. Therefore on 19th June 2012, a sum of Rs.3,83,900/- was paid through cheque No.049343 was paid through RTGS. Similarly on 21-6-2012 a sum of Rs.3,83,900/- was paid by cheque No.049345 was paid. And on 11-7-2012 a sum of Rs.3,83,900/- was paid by cheque No.0487069 was paid through RTGS. Similarly payments were made as detailed in the Statement of Account filed along with this additional counter.”
On behalf of the petitioners, a reply affidavit was filed, wherein it was specifically pleaded that the sum of Rs.15,35,460/- stated to have been paid by the respondents was towards arrears of rents in respect of the building constructed by the petitioners situated in Amarajyothi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and comprised in Sy.Nos.127 and 129/1 of Thokatta Village, Secunderabad, which was let out to respondent No.1 society for establishing Aurora’s School of Business (formerly Church P.G. College) and that the bounced cheques referred to in the additional counter-affidavit in lieu of which RTGS payments were made pertain to the rents payable in respect of the said building.
The lower Court, while disallowing the claim of the petitioners for deposit of arrears of rent, however, directed the respondents to deposit the future rents as agreed on or before 10th of every month.
From the respective pleadings of the parties, it is evident that the respondents are in possession of two different properties belonging to the petitioners, namely; the suit schedule property which is situated at Parvathapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, wherein respondent No.1 is running an educational institution, and the property situated in Sy.Nos.127 and 129/1 situated at Thokatta Village, Secunderabad, wherein respondent No.1 is running another educational institution in the name of Aurora’s School of Business (formerly Church P.G. College). The only dispute between the parties at this stage pertains to whether the sum of Rs.15,35,460/- stated to have been paid towards the admitted rents by the respondents was towards the suit schedule premises or towards the building situated in Amarajyothi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, let out to them by the petitioners, wherein the said Aurora’s School of Business is being run.
While the counter-affidavit of the respondents was highly evasive, for the first time, in the additional counter-affidavit, they have come out with the plea that as they have failed to pay rents for the months of July 2010 to May 2012 to the tune of Rs.15,41,870/-, they have issued cheque No.049343 for a sum of Rs.3,83,900/-, cheque No.049345 for a sum of Rs.3,83,900/- and cheque No.0487069 for a similar sum and that eventually these payments were made through RTGS. The petitioners have filed copies of these cheques which were bounced and in lieu whereof, RTGS payments were made. A perusal of the copies of the cheques would show that they were issued “for Church P.G. College”, signed by its Secretary. In the reply-affidavit, the petitioners specifically pleaded that the Aurora’s School of Business is notified in the list of affiliated colleges by describing it as “formerly Church P.G. College”. It is, thus, clearly evident that the sum of Rs.15,35,460/- sought to be paid under three cheques, which were dishonoured and which amount was eventually paid through RTGS, was towards the rent payable in respect of the building occupied by Aurora’s School of Business. Regrettably, the lower Court has completely failed to deal with this aspect and mislead itself into believing that the petitioners failed to prove that the said amount was paid towards the rent payable for the building in occupation of Aurora’s School of Business. The only circumstance on which the lower Court has relied was that the petitioners failed to maintain two accounts. In my opinion, the approach of the lower Court is wholly unsustainable. When the respondents have admitted that they are in possession of two separate properties, the initial burden lies on them to show that they have paid rents separately for both the properties. The lower Court has wrongly thrown the burden on the petitioners to prove the fact that the respondents have not paid the amounts towards the rents payable to the suit schedule property. Even if such burden was placed on the petitioners, they have successfully discharged the same by coming out with detailed pleadings by way of reply affidavit supported by the cheques issued by the respondents.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the order of the lower Court is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to deposit the sum of Rs.13,71,496/- towards the admitted rents within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which their defence in the suit shall be struck off.
The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.1769 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 8th August, 2014 IBL