Smt.G. Sujatha vs. Sri. Mohammed Safiulla

Facts

The petitioners, Smt. G. Sujatha and Sri. Gona Ravindra Babu, filed an original suit (O.S. No. 1318/2021) seeking ejectment of the respondent, Mohammed Safiulla, from the suit premises. The petitioners, claiming to be landlords, sought a direction for the respondent to pay arrears of rent amounting to ₹4,95,600/- for the period January 2021 to September 2022, at a rate of ₹23,600/- per month, including 18% GST. This application (I.A. No. 3) was filed under Section 151 of the CPC. The respondent denied the landlord-tenant relationship. The trial court rejected the application, leading the petitioners to file the present writ petition challenging the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners, having claimed to have terminated the tenancy and seeking relief for ejectment and mesne profit/damages, cannot at this stage claim a specific sum as arrears of rent. The entitlement of the petitioners would be to mesne profit/damages for unauthorized use and occupation, if any. The quantification of mesne profit/damages requires a proper procedure and cannot be equated with the quantum of rent without hearing the other side. Therefore, the direction to deposit ₹4,95,600/- as prayed for could not be ordered. The trial court's rejection of I.A. No. 3 was found to be justified. The writ petition was dismissed as having no grounds for admission. However, the petitioners were granted liberty to file an appropriate application before the trial court for deposit of a reasonable sum towards the alleged continued possession of the defendant, which the trial court would consider in accordance with law after hearing both sides.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, as alleged landlords, are entitled to claim a specific sum as arrears of rent from the respondent, particularly when the tenancy is stated to have been terminated and the suit also seeks mesne profit/damages for unauthorized occupation? The petitioners argued that they are the landlords and the respondent is a chronic defaulter. They sought to adjust the advance amount and claimed the balance of ₹4,95,600/- as arrears of rent. They relied on the lease agreement and the monthly rent of ₹23,600/- including 18% GST. The respondent denied the landlord-tenant relationship. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent against the application, other than the denial of the relationship.