N.Mallikarjuna Rao vs. Jumma Masjid Waqf

Held

The Court held that there was no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference. The Court observed that it is competent to make a summary enquiry under Order 15-A Rule 2 when the tenant does not dispute errors or the quantum of rent. The Court found that the Tribunal correctly decided the rent payable and directed the deposit of arrears, postponing the final decision to the main suit. The Court reasoned that failing to direct such payments would encourage unscrupulous tenants to avoid paying rent, resulting in substantial loss to the landlord. The Court also noted that its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are limited and should not be exercised to correct every erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or to interfere with discretionary powers unless they violate principles of natural justice or are arbitrary. The Court cited Waryam Singh & another v. Amarnath & another to emphasize the limited scope of interference under Article 227. The specific issue regarding GST was not explicitly addressed in the final holding, but the overall dismissal implies it was not a ground for interference in this instance.

Facts

The petitioners, defendants in a suit before the Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Tribunal, filed several Civil Revision Petitions challenging the Tribunal's order allowing an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 7 of 2024 in O.S. No. 9 of 2024). The suit was filed by the respondent (Jumma Masjid Waqf) for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. The petitioners had leased a shop from the respondent and continued possession on a month-to-month basis after the initial lease expired. The respondent alleged significant arrears of rent and issued a quit notice, which the petitioners failed to comply with. The interlocutory application sought direction for the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent and continue paying monthly rent during the pendency of the suit. The Tribunal allowed this application, directing the petitioners to pay the arrears.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in directing the petitioners to pay arrears of rent under Order 15-A of the CPC, when the quantum of rent was disputed by the petitioners? 2. Whether the Tribunal ought to have considered that GST is not part of the rent and should be paid to the concerned department, not the landlord? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the Tribunal's order was erroneous and contrary to Order 15-A of the CPC. They contended that a tenant cannot be directed to pay arrears for which the plaintiff sought a decree in the main suit under Order 15-A. They asserted that only admitted amounts can be directed for deposit, not disputed amounts. Furthermore, they argued that without conducting an enquiry, the tenant cannot be directed to pay arrears as claimed by the plaintiff. Crucially, they submitted that GST is not part of the rent and has to be paid to the concerned department, not the landlord, and the Tribunal failed to adjudicate whether the lease deed included GST. They relied on M/s. Tanmai Jewels Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Ch.Sreesaila Kumari and another and K.Zakria Shaik v. K.Saleem Basha regarding the scope of Order XV-A CPC and the importance of 'undisputed' arrears. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondent's counsel.