THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1250 AND 1251 OF 2013 Dated:18-07-2014 Between:
M./s. Arora Educational Society, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, having registered office at 1-8- 168/2/1, Old Gulshan Hotel Lane, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad represented by its Chairman Raja Babu ... PETITIONER AND N.L.N. Reddy and five others .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1250 AND 1251 OF 2013 COMMON ORDER:
Both the revisions are filed by the sole defendant in O.S No. 672 of 2010 in the Court of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner is a lessee in respect of the premises owned by the respondents. The suit was filed for eviction of the petitioner as well as for recovery of arrears of rent. The respondents also filed I.A No. 4026 of 2010 under Order XVA of CPC, with a prayer to direct the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent and in default, to strike off the defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court allowed I.A No. 4062 of 2010 directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent calculated at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per month, from the date of suit and to continue to pay the rent at that rate. C.R.P No. 1250 of 2013 is filed against the said order.
On the ground that the petitioner did not deposit the amount within the stipulated time, the trial Court struck off the defence, through order dated 17-11-2012. Hence, C.R.P No. 1251 of 2013 is filed.
Heard Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Jagannadha Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner does not dispute that it is lessee in respect of the premises owned by the respondents. Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued and the suit for eviction was filed.
Order XVA CPC provides for filing of an application, in a suit of this nature, by the plaintiff requiring the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent. Though some dispute existed as to the quantum of rent, the trial Court determined the same to be Rs.80,000/- per month. It is not the case of the petitioner that it paid the rents from the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order under revision. C.R.P No. 1250 of 2013 is accordingly dismissed.
However, the petitioner is granted some facility in the context of payment of rents. In compliance with the interim order passed by this Court, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was deposited. The petitioner shall deposit a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- within one month from today; another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- within one month thereafter and Rs.5,00,000/- within one month thereafter. Such payment of arrears shall be subject to final adjudication in the suit. The petitioner shall also pay the rents regularly at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per month from this month.
In view of the orders passed in C.R.P No. 1250 of 2013, C.R.P No. 1251 of 2013 is allowed and the order under revision is set aside.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 18th July, 2014 ks