Sri. V.Srinivasulu vs. M/S Optival Healthe Solutions / PVT. LTD

Held

The Court held that the respondent failed to comply with the order dated 12-07-2018 in I.A. No. 297 of 2018. The order explicitly directed deposit into the petitioner's bank account, with deposit into the suit account only permitted if the petitioner refused to accept. Offering payment via cheque on 27-07-2018 was not a compliance with the order, which required deposit within 15 days of 12-07-2018. The lower court's extension of time and permission to deposit via Demand Draft on 27-07-2018 was also improper as it extended the time fixed in the original order without a proper request. Furthermore, the respondent's claim of non-compliance due to Covid-19 for rents payable after February 2020 was not substantiated by any prior communication seeking bank details. Consequently, the Court found that the lower court wrongly exercised its jurisdiction by dismissing I.A. No. 1349 of 2019. The revision petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, I.A. No. 1349 of 2019 was allowed, and the respondent's defence was struck off. The respondent was also directed to pay costs.

Facts

The petitioner, a landlord, filed a suit for eviction and damages against the respondent tenant for unauthorized occupation of premises. The lease agreement expired on April 15, 2017. The petitioner sought damages at Rs. 3,000 per day from April 16, 2017, onwards. The respondent admitted the lease agreement and its expiry, but claimed negotiations for renewal at Rs. 20,000 per month. Disputes arose regarding GST and TDS. The petitioner filed an application (I.A. No. 297 of 2018) for deposit of rents. The Court directed the respondent to deposit arrears of rent at Rs. 20,000 per month and continue monthly deposits, failing which the defence would be struck off. The petitioner then filed another application (I.A. No. 1349 of 2019) to strike off the defence, alleging non-compliance with the earlier order. The lower court dismissed this application, leading to the present revision petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent complied with the order dated 12-07-2018 in I.A. No. 297 of 2018, which directed the deposit of arrears of rent and future rents into the petitioner's bank account, failing which the respondent's defence was to be struck off? 2. Whether the lower court erred in dismissing I.A. No. 1349 of 2019, which sought to strike off the respondent's defence for non-compliance with the earlier order? Petitioner's arguments: The respondent failed to comply with the order dated 12-07-2018 by offering payment via cheque instead of depositing into the petitioner's bank account as directed. The lower court's dismissal of I.A. No. 1349 of 2019 with the reasoning that allegations would be decided in the main suit was perverse and caused grave injustice. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that they were ready and willing to pay the agreed rent and that disputes arose regarding GST and TDS. They claimed to have offered payment via cheque, which the petitioner refused, and subsequently sought permission to deposit the amount in court. They also cited the Covid-19 pandemic for non-compliance with subsequent rent payments.