Siddhardha Tiles And Sanitory PVT. LTD. vs. M/S G K Print House PVT. LTD.

Held

The High Court held that the impugned order was well-reasoned and did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the landlord-tenant relationship. The dispute centered on two lease deeds, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.18, both dated 28.04.2018, with differing rent amounts and terms. The Court acknowledged that the genuineness of Ex.P.18 was questioned and sent for forensic analysis, but stated that this aspect needed adjudication in the main suit. However, the Court found that the learned Judge had taken into consideration Ex.P.19, a registered lease agreement dated 25.03.2011, which detailed rent particulars with annual increases. The Court found the learned Judge's reasoning that it was improbable to let out the premises for a rent significantly lower than the previous rent to be valid and convincing. Citing the judgment in M.B.Chander, the Court outlined guidelines for exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, emphasizing that interference is warranted only in cases of erroneous assumption of jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, errors of law, violation of natural justice, arbitrary exercise of authority, perverse findings, patent procedural errors, manifest injustice, or errors on facts and law. The Court concluded that the learned Additional District Judge's order was well-articulated and well-reasoned, and therefore, no valid reason existed to meddle with it. The revision petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, the defendant in a suit for eviction and recovery of rent, challenged an order passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The plaintiff had filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 874 of 2018) under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a direction for the defendant to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 22,47,500/- and to continue paying Rs. 3,75,000/- per month plus 18% GST. The defendant contested the quantum of rent. The trial court allowed the interlocutory application, directing the defendant to pay Rs. 22,47,500/- after deducting 20 days' rent for May 2018, with a condition that failure to comply would result in the defense being struck off. This order is the subject of the present Civil Revision Petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order is in accordance with the provisions of Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was erroneous, contrary to law, and opposed to the spirit of Order XV-A. They argued that the court below arrived at the quantum of rent based on assumptions and presumptions, without valid documentary evidence, and wrongly relied on an earlier lease deed. The petitioner also argued that Ex.P.4, an agreement of lease dated 28.04.2018, was inadmissible due to lack of registration and stamp duty. - Respondent's argument: The respondent argued that the impugned order was not amenable to judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as it was passed after a summary inquiry in accordance with Order XV-A. They further contended that even if Ex.P.4 were excluded, there was sufficient material on record to support the court's conclusion, and that the earlier lease surrender date explained why Ex.P.4 could not be registered. 2. Whether the questioned order warrants any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? - This issue is addressed by both parties through their arguments on the first issue, with the petitioner seeking interference and the respondent opposing it.