K. N. Murthy vs. Surender Bantia , Premraj Surender Bantia

It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents had not beerr payinq rents lrom Novetnber. 20 18 till January' 20 l9 inclLrding rnainrenance and GSI: that they issuecl legal notice to the rcsPonclents otr

0 I .20 l9 terntinatinq the lcase; and so they ate entitled to darllages also at Rs.7.00.000 - pcr rnonth.

Written statement rvas tlled on 26.06.2019 by the l" respondent opposing the suit clairn on several grounds. 'I Irc suit O.S.\o.230 of 2{) l9

Along with the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.4Sl of 2019 under' Order XV-A CPC for a direction to the respondents to deposit admitted monthly rents of Rs.12,87,4521- towards arrears of rent, including maintenance and GST and to continue to deposit the monthly rents at the rate of Rs.4,29,150.66 ps. per month till disposal of the main suit.

On 27.08.2019, this Application was allowed with costs and the respondents were directed to deposit the anears of rnonthly rents ibr the suit schedule properties at the ratc of lts.3,50.426.50 ps. fiom December, 20 Iu to January,20 l9 and to continue to pay nlonthly'rcllts at the same rate tio nr February,20 l9 on or belore 5'r'of each calendar month directly to the petitioners, and in delault of either of the conditions, it was directed that the defence ofthe respondents/defendants in the suit shal1 be struck off. I.A.No.l7 59 of 2019

Subsequently, the respondents filed I.A.No. 1759 of 2019 in the Court below for modification olthe order dt.27.08.20 l9 in I.A.No.45 I of 20 19 contending that they had made a counter clainr to thc tune o1' Rs.1.55,50.000/- with interest against the petirioncrs. and so the rerrtal anroullts rlirected in thc olclcr har e to bc moclitlcd 1o the e xtent ol' pcm-ritting the respondents to deposit arrcars ol' rents into thc Court insteacl ol'paying thenr directly to the petitioners rvithtrut arr1, sccurity. 1

This Application was disrnissed by the Court be lorv on 02.12.2019. MSR..I cqr_517&balclr

In the meantinre, the petitioners had flled C.R.P.No.263 of 2020 challenging the order dt.27.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.45l of 2019 contending t1.rat though the Court below had mentioned in para 5 of the said order that the respondents are due rents from November 2018, in the last paragraph of the order the Coud below had incorrectly directed the respondents to pay rents only from Decen-rber, 2018. It was also contended that there is liability to pay Goods and Sen,ice Tax on the rents payable bv the responclents to the petitioners. and that the said liability should also be discharged by thc rcspondents; and though this contention rvas raised in the Cor-rrt belorv, it did not advert to this point u,hen it passed the orcler on 27.08.2019 in I.A.No.45 I of 2019 I l. Both these contentions wele accepted by this Court anil the CIIP month of November,20l8 as well to petitioners; and to pay every month to the Competent Authority under the GST Act, 2017 ,, tax @ 18% on the rent of Rs.3,50,4621 payable every month to the petitioners; the arrears of GST on the rent for the period frorn November, 2018 till 12.03.2020 u,ere directed to be deposited to the credit of the suit within four (4) It was made clear that in default of payment of the sarne, the det'encc o I the responclents \\,as liable to be struck o lf It also perniitted the alloultt deposited torvarcls the rent fbr 3 Novernber, 201 8 and the amounts deposited towards GST by the (l.R.l).No.26.1 of 2020 was allowed on I 2.03.2020 directing the respondents to pay rent for the r'veeks along u'ith the rent lor the month of November, 2018. i\,ISR,J crp_527&batch respondents to be withdrawn by the petitioners so that they can transmrt the GST amounts to the Competent Authority under the GST Act' 2017' I.A.No.1 14 of 2020

The petitioners subsequently filed LA.No.114 of 2020 to strike of'f the deltncc of the respondents stating that the respondeuts did not comply ivith the orcler passed by tlie Courl below in I'A'No 45 I of 2019 though two moltths have elapsed by then.

Counter aff idavit was flled to this Application by the I u respondent stating that they were ready to pay the rents, that the respondents have tried to hand over a cheque bealing No.000411 dt.15.01.2020 for Rs.12,61,668/- on 20.01.2020, but the petitioners refused to receive the same. He stated that the respondents, in order to show their bonafides, had obtained Demand Draft bearing No'008773 for Rs.12,61,668/- dt.28.01.2020 in favour of IX Additionat Chief Judge and were ready to deposit the same to the credit of the suit and the said amount is towards fbur (4) months rent atter deducting TDS' 14, By order dt.03.02.2020, the Court below disrnissed the said Application observing that therc are nlany contentious issues to be tried. tllat the counter claim of the respondents is also to be tried by lr'aming appropriate issues, and that the defence of the respondents in the writtetr Statement which also contains their counter claim, cannot be stmck otT. I

Assailing the same, the petitioners frled C.R'P.No.63l of 2021

Thereafter, the petitioners fi1ed I.A.No.597 of 2020 again to strike o1'lthe delence ofthe respondents on the ground that the order passed by this Courl on 12.03.2020 in C.R.P.No.263 of 2020 directing the respondents to pay the rent for November, 2018 and to continue to pay the rents along with GST @ 18% on the rent of Rs.3,50,462l- payable every month, was not complied with; and the arears of GST on the rents lrom November, 2018 had not been deposited to the credit of O.S.No.230 ol 2019 within fbur (4) weeks frorn the date of receipt ol this Court's order in the CRP No.263 of2020 along with rent lorNovenrber, 2018. 17. Again a countel allldavit was filed thereto by the respondents stating that they had dcposited on 24.08.2020, Rs.6,30,8341- vide D.D.No.009013, that they liad deposited the same alnount llrlr: another D.D.No.00844 ol- tite sanre datc, and the sanre amount through auothcr D.D.No.009067 d1.03.10.2020. They also stated that they had filed an Application along with D.D.No.008773 dt.28.01 .2020 for Rs.12,61,6881 seeking permission to deposit the same into the suit account. They also claimed that at the time when the respondents were inducted as tenants, they had paid interest free security deposit of Rs.15,90,000/- and after deducting the said security deposit and the amounts paid by way of demand drafts, the respondents are only liable to pay monthly rents for a pcriod of six rronths arld not 23 rrronths as claimed by the petitionels. 'l'hcy again reterrecl to the counter claim tlled by them. "fhey also reicrTed

The respondents thus admitted that the rents were due fbr six months and because there is pandemic of covid-19, it would be unfair and unjust on the paft of the petitioners to expect the tenants to pay rents' 19. l)1, ordcr dt.02.l I .2020, ttie Coun belorv disposecl of l A No 597 ol 2020 observing that the responcleuts should pay l{s'4,13,545/- tl'om october, 2020 without any further default and directed the parlies to get ready for trial. Itnotedthatitappearedfromtherecordthattherespondentswere still in default of payment of huge amount of Rs'4,13,545/- being the monthly rent + GST at lSoA as per the order passed in C'R'P'No'263 of 2020 from October, 2020. But instead of striking off the dei'ence of the respondents, whetl there is specific orcler passed by this Coutl on l2'03'2020 in C.R.P.No.263 of 2020, the Court below directed the palties to get ready lbr trial.

This is challenged by the petitioners in C.R.P.No'663 of 2021' l.A.No. l39 of 2021

Subsequent thereto, the petitioners fi1ed another I'A'No'139 of 2021 under Order XV-A CPC to direct the respondents to deposit the admitted monthly rents of Rs.59,28,8161- towards arr.ears of rent and also :;6::

By a cryptic ordcr dt.0-1.01.202 l. the Courl belorv r'lo.scri tlte said l.A. on the ground that sinrilar petitions w'cle lilcd carlier. artcl alicr claborate enquiry the1, rvere ordeted; that the petitioners had rvithdrawrl ceftain rents deposited in the Court by filing cheque petitions, and the petitioners cannot be expected to invite orders again and again. It observed that the calculation memos filed by the parties will be considered at the time of the trial.

Challenging the said order, petitioners filed CRP No.527 of 2027 24, Sri \redula Srinivas. learned Scniol Counsel appcaring lbr the llctitioncrs sought to contend tlrat hav ing regarcl to the linding rccorclccl in the orcier dt.02.11.2020 in I.A.No.597 o12020 bv the Coult belolv about non-conrpliance by the respondents of the orcler passed by this Courl on 12.0i.2020 in C.R.P.No.263 of 2020. the Court below had no choice except to strike ofl the defence of the respondents, and there is no necessity fbr giving opportunity to the respondents to contest the matter in view of the language contained in Order XV-A CpC and so the CRps are to be allowed. 7< c,.i learned counsel appearing 1br M/s.Chanclrasen Larv Sunil, olfices appearing for the respondents however contended that since onry ( onlcntions ol counscl [br Dctitioncrs Contcntion of Counsel for resrrondents

I llnd considerable fbrce in the contentions of the counsel lor the petitioners.

Admittedly in I.A.No.45l of 2019, there was a direction to the respondents to deposit atrears of monthly rent at the rate of Rs.3,50,426.50 ps. from December, 2018 to January, 20t9 and continue to pay n.ronthly rents at the same rate from February,20l9 on or belore 5'r' ol each calendar month directly to the petitioners. 28. 'fhis orcler rvas nroclitiecl in C.R.l'.No 26l o12020 on 12 03 2020 asking thc respondcnts to deposit rent tbr Novetrber' 20 l8 also with arrears oIGST on renr tiom November, 2018 till 12.03.2020 in tbur (4) weeks.

By virtue of the observation in the said order, the liability to pay GST is on the tenants onlY.

Tlrere was also a direction to the respondents to pay GST @ 18% 8 on the rent of Rs.3,50,462l- payable every month to the petitioners'

But the payments for the months of November,2018 to January, 2019 were made through D.D.No.008773 dt.28.01.2020, D.D.No.009013 dt.24.08. 2020 and D.D.No.00 8844 dt.24.08.2020 .

The rents fbr February and March, 2019 were deposited vide D.D.No.009067 dt.03.l 0.2020 and D.D.No.009076 dt.09.10.2020. 9 September, 2020, no deposits have been made and no amount was credited towards GSI'to tlre Cotnpetent Authority under thc GST Act

In the order passed by it on 02.1 1.2020 tn I.A.No.597 o12020, the Court below had observed as under "Therefore, as seen from the calculations in the above table, the respondent in total has deposited a sum of R-s.37,85,004/-. From November 2018 to September 2020 i.e. for a total period of 23 months, lhe respondent has to pay Rs.95,11,535/- towards arrears of rent along with GST at 1896 .for 23 months and out of which a sum of Rs.37,85,004/- if deducted, the remaining amount of arrears of rent comes to Rs.57,26,531/-. Therefore, the sum of Rs.37,85,004/- can be ind icated. 32, Sincc the Cor"rn belou, had directed cleposit from Decembcr, 201 8

Even according to the Court belorv, from April, 2019 to :: l0:: t\ I s t{..r cqr 517&brldh (t(lf tLSte(l .tl)praiin[t/e l.v lo\1'(t ds 9 fio]ltlts rcnt ittclt.:.ling (-iS-l a1 137;' A-\ prr the tttblc sho:rn {tL)o\.c, slill !he resSttttrlcttl is tluc ttttt'tlltl.t tcttt.s t t\ Lrt I \ . t.t t )t.,t tlt\...... 37. 'l irLrs, thcre is a clcar tinding titat tllc l'espondellt\ ilrc cltll: Illorlthl)' rellts + GS-['at l8'l'o tbr l4 months.

Therefore, there is clear non-colnpliance with the lower Courl's order dt.27.08.2019 in I.A.No.451 of 2019 as modified in the older dt.12.03.2020 in C.R.P.No.263 of 2020 by this Coutl.

In view of the sarne, under Rule (2) of Order XV-A CPC, the defence of the respondents in the suit is liable to be struck off. 40, Thereibrc. tl.re three CRPs are allowed lvith costs c,f Rs. 1.00,000r- to be paid by the resporrdents to the petitioners; thc clef-ence ol the rcspouricnts in tiic suit O.S.No.230 of 2019 is str-rrck otl; and the Court belor.v is dirccted to proceed further in the tlatter ar-rd deci,-le the sLrit

Pending rniscellaneous petitions, il any, in thesc Revisions shall stand closed. The Costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the petitioners by the Respondents. (Rupees One Lakh only) NOS.527, 631 AND 663 oF 2021 IVEIVIORANDUM OF COSTS //// Rs.1,00,000/- .K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT EGIST R CRP 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Kj The lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. One CC to Sri Vedula Srinivis, Advocate (OPUCj One CC to Sri K.S.Suneel, Chandrasen Law Office Advocate (OpUC) Two CD Coptes One Spare Copy To I SECTION OFFICER zE-''