The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.2368 of 2014
Dated 14.08.2014
Between:
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Now rep. by its Sr.Regional Manager, Mr.Ch.Srinivas …Petitioner/2nd respondent And T.Pradeep Kumar and 3 others …Respondents/petitioners Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Thoom Srinivas Counsel for the respondents: Mr.S.Sridhar The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 01-07-2014, in IA.No.651 of 2013 in OS.No.1173 of 2013, on the file of the Court of the learned XVI Additional District Judge at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the lower Court’).
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed the abovementioned suit for eviction of respondent No.4 and the petitioner herein from the property admeasuring 1100 square yards situated at Moula Ali Village, Malkajgiri Municipality, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the suit schedule property’). Pending the suit, they have filed IA.No.651 of 2013 under Order XV-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), for a direction to respondent No.4 and the petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- into the Court towards arrears of admitted rents from September 2010 till August, 2013 and continue to deposit the rents in future, failing which their defence shall be struck off.
It is the pleaded case of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property; that they have leased out the said property to respondent No.4 for a period of 15 years with effect from 01-01-2001 on a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- vide registered lease deed, dated 07-02-2003; and that as per the said lease deed, respondent No.4 shall pay the monthly rents from time to time to respondent Nos.1 to 3 on or before 5th of each English calendar year without fail and shall obtain valid receipt. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 further pleaded that respondent No.4 subleased the suit schedule property to the petitioner for running a retail outlet; that as the agreed lease amount has not been paid by respondent No.4, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have caused several legal notices issued to respondent No.4 and the petitioner; and that as no payment was made and the suit schedule property was not vacated despite expiry of the lease period, they have filed the above-mentioned suit. As noted herein before, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have also filed IA.No.651 of 2013 for a direction to the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 to deposit the admitted rents.
Respondent No.4 remained ex parte. The petitioner- Corporation filed a counter-affidavit wherein it has pleaded that there is no privity of contract between itself and respondent Nos.1 to 3 and that it has been regularly paying the monthly lease amount of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.4, who leased out the suit schedule property to it, and that if respondent No.4, in turn, has not paid the lease amounts agreed under the lease deed entered between itself and respondent Nos.1 to 3, the latter have to recover the same from respondent No.4.
The Court below has, however, allowed the application by directing both respondent No.4 and the petitioner herein to deposit the admitted rents on or before 01-08-2014.
I have heard Mr.Thoom Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.S.Sridhar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Apart from the fact that respondent No.4 has remained ex parte and has not contested the application, having regard to the nature of the dispute, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.4. A perusal of registered lease deed, dated 07-02-2003, entered between respondent Nos.1 to 3 on one side and respondent No.4 on the other would show that the property was given on lease to respondent No.4 on a monthly lease/premium of Rs.30,000/- for a period of 15 years with effect from 01-01-2001 with an increase of Rs.1,000/- per month for every 12 months and that the lease amount shall be paid by the lessee on or before 5th of each English calendar month in advance, without fail, by obtaining valid receipt. Clause 8 of lease deed, dated 07-02-2003, which is relevant for the present purpose, reads as under;
“That the Lessee/Second Part shall not sublet the said Schedule Property or portion thereof to any third person without the written permission of the Lessors/First Part. However, the Lessee/Second Part hereby permitted to execute sub-lease with the H.P.C.L. for the limited purpose in view of nature of business and its requirement subject to conditions that the same shall not exceed the terms and conditions including duration of the lease period and physical possession as agreed between the parties herein.”
In pursuance of Clause 8 quoted above, respondent No.4 entered into sub-lease with the petitioner vide lease deed, dated 18-02-2003. The said sub-lease was for a term of 12 years and 11 months from 01-02-2003 to 31-12-2016 renewable and determinable as per the covenants in the lease deed on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- payable on or before 10th day of each succeeding English calendar month. As per Clause 1 of the said lease deed, the lessee shall pay the rent reserved on the day and in the manner referred in the lease deed.
The above-noted covenants of both the lease deeds would clinchingly establish that there is no privity of contract between respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the one side and the petitioner on the other side. While under lease deed, dated 07-02- 2003, respondent No.4 is liable to pay the lease premium to respondent Nos.1 to 3, under lease deed, dated 18-02-2003, the petitioner is under obligation to pay the monthly rent to respondent No.4. In the absence of any agreement between respondent Nos.1 to 3 on one side and the petitioner on the other to pay any part of the rent in respect of the suit schedule property to respondent Nos.1 to 3, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 could enforce the liability only against respondent No.4 under lease deed, dated 07-02-2003. Unfortunately, the lower Court has not adverted to this aspect, which constitutes the crux of the issue between the parties, and failed to render any finding thereon.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the direction issued by the lower Court for deposit of the arrears of admitted rents by the petitioner is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, Order, dated 01-07-2014, in IA.No.651 of 2013 in OS.No.1173 of 2013, on the file of the lower Court qua the petitioner, is set aside.
However, the said Order qua respondent No.4 remains unaffected and the same can be enforced by respondent Nos.1 to 3.
The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.3300 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 14th August, 2014
LUR