Appeal Suit No. 213 of 2011. Case: Taste Hotels Private Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao S/o Venkaiah Vs Medisetty Jayasri and Nainala Chaitanya. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Appeal Suit No. 213 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Y.V. Ravi Prasad, Adv. And For Respondents: M.R.S. Srinivas, Adv. |
| Judges | L. Narasimha Reddy, J. |
| Issue | Income Tax Act - Section 203; Transfer of Property Act - Section 106; Evidence Act - Section 58; Limitation Act - Section 3; Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Section 151 - Order 8, Rules 5, 5(2), 10 - Order 10, Rules 2, 3 - Order 12, Rule 6 - Order 15, Rule 1 - Order 15(1)(A), Rule 1 - Order 20, Rules 4, 5, 6, 6(1) |
| Citation | AIR 2012 AP 4, 2011 (5) ALD 508 |
| Judgement Date | June 07, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
-
The Appellant is a lessee in respect of a three storied building bearing Door No. 5-408 of Ongole Town, owned by the Respondents. The lease commenced in May, 2006 with a monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/-. The Respondents got issued notice, dated 29.03.2007, requiring the Appellant to vacate the premises, on the ground that the rents for the period between October, 2006 and November, 2007, were not paid. Thereafter, correspondence ensued between the parties. The Respondents, ultimately, filed O.S. No. 4 of 2008 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The suit has since been transferred to the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Ongole, and renumbered as O.S. No. 105 of 2010.
-
The Respondents filed I.A. No. 42 of 2008 under Rule 1 of Order XVA Code of Civil Procedure (in its application to the State of Andhra Pradesh) with a prayer to direct the Appellant herein to deposit the arrears of rent. The Appellant contested the application by stating that a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- was already paid as advance. Other relevant factors were also pleaded. The trial Court passed an order, dated 26.06.2009, in that I.A., by directing the Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/-, as arrears up to June, 2008, after deducting Rs. 2,55,000/- already deposited into the Court, within 30 days. Further, a direction was issued to deposit monthly rents from time to time, till the disposal of the suit. Thereafter, several applications were filed by the parties either for extension of the time or for striking off the defence and orders of different purport were passed.
-
The Respondents filed I.A. No. 479 of 2010 under Rule 6 of Order XII read with Rule 1 of Order XV(1)(A) and under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to strike off the defence of the Appellant herein and to render the judgment as provided for under Rule 6 of Order XII Code of Civil Procedure I.A. No. 480 of 2010 was filed under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to direct the Appellant herein to submit the returns in Form 16-A under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act. The Appellant opposed both the applications by raising various grounds of fact and law. Through a common order dated 16.03.2011, the trial Court allowed both the applications and had struck off the defence of the Appellant. Simultaneously, it had decreed the suit, through a judgment running into few lines, directing the Appellant to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of the decree. Hence, this appeal.
-
Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that the trial Court committed errors of fact and law in decreeing the suit. He contends that an application under Rule 1 of Order XVA Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the Respondents, and in compliance with the orders passed therein, the rents are being deposited from time to time. He submits that there was no justification or basis for filing an application by invoking two different provisions, namely, Rule 6 of Order XII and Rule 1 of Order XVA Code of Civil Procedure According to him, these provisions operate in different fields, and there does not exist any scope for applying both the provisions for one and the same situation. Learned Counsel further submits that the admission contemplated under Rule 6 of Order XII Code of Civil Procedure must be unequivocal either in the pleadings or in the course of trial and that no such admission ensued in the instant case.
-
Learned Counsel further contends that even where a Defendant remains ex parte, the trial Court is under obligation to render judgment on merits, and that the decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Surepeme Court in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan AIR 1999 SC 3381 which, in turn, was followed by this Court in Kedarisetti Atmaram v. N. Seetharama Raju 2011 (1) ALD 426. He further submits that in a suit filed for the relief of eviction by invoking Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the existence or otherwise of arrears of rent, hardly matters and a suit cannot be decreed on that basis alone.
-
Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submits that the trial Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the Appellant admitted the existence of arrears of rent and that in turn resulted in striking off of the defence under Order XVA. He contends that once the defence is struck off and there is a clear admission, attracting Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.S.A. No. 1 of 2012. Case: Shri Umesh Agarwal, Shri Mudit Agarwal and Shri Sohil Agarwal Vs Shri Mahesh Agarwal, Shri Mihir Agarwal and Smt. Mridula Agarwal. Sikkim High Court
...Chhelaram vs. Manak: 1997 Raj 284; the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Taste Hotels Pvt. Vs. Medisetty Jayasri & anr.: AIR 2012 AP 4. In support of the arguments regarding the contours of the jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC and what amounts to substantial question of law......
-
R.S.A. No. 1 of 2012. Case: Shri Umesh Agarwal, Shri Mudit Agarwal and Shri Sohil Agarwal Vs Shri Mahesh Agarwal, Shri Mihir Agarwal and Smt. Mridula Agarwal. Sikkim High Court
...Chhelaram vs. Manak: 1997 Raj 284; the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Taste Hotels Pvt. Vs. Medisetty Jayasri & anr.: AIR 2012 AP 4. In support of the arguments regarding the contours of the jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC and what amounts to substantial question of law......