APHC010348712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1690/2025 Between: 1. VUPPALA SUBBA RAO,, S/O- SUBBARAJU, AGED- 35, R/O- D.NO.5- 9-2, MAIN BAZAR, SAMARLAKOTA, KAKINADA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. DESETTI LAKSHMI PRASANNA KUMARI, W/o- Nukaraju, aged- 43, R/o- D.N0.18-3-35/3, Ayodhya nagar Jaggamagaripeta, Samarlakota. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 9-5- 2025 passed by the Honble Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Kakinada in I.A No. 1655 of 2023 in O.S No. 386 of 2019 and consequently allow I.A No. 1655 of 2023 in O.S No. 386 of 2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Kakinada and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 386 of 2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakinada pending disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VIVEK 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.1690 of 2025 Counsel for the Respondent: 1. RAMANA ALLU The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.1690 of 2025 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in I.A.No.1655 of 2023 in O.S.No.386 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakinada. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.386 of 2019. He purchased the suit schedule property from the respondent/defendant under a registered sale deed dated 31.12.2015, for a sale consideration of Rs.30,06,000/-. Thereafter, on oral request of the respondent/defendant, the petitioner/plaintiff let out the said property to her on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-. The respondent paid the rent only up to April, 2016, and thereafter, the respondent stopped paying the rents. Consequently, the petitioner/plaintiff was constrained to file O.S.No.386 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, wherein the respondent filed a written statement and also an additional written statement. b) Pending the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1655 of 2023 in O.S.No.386 of 2019 under Order XV-A and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking a direction to the respondent/defendant to deposit the arrears of rent. The said I.A. was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 09.05.2025, which is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition. 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.1690 of 2025 3. Heard Mr.P.Rajashekar, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Ramana Allu, learned for the respondent. 4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after execution of the registered sale deed dated 31.12.2015 vide document No.5294/2015 (Ex.A1), in respect of the schedule property admeasuring 97.66 sq.yards (ground floor) and 10.55 sq.yards (adjoining site), the respondent/defendant mortgaged the entire building in favour of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited on 31.05.2016 (Ex.R3/Mortgage deed). When proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated by Cholamandalam Finance Company, the petitioner objected for the same. The matter was referred to arbitration at Madras, wherein the petitioner/plaintiff filed an implead petition, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed CMA No.3551 of 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Madras. In the said proceedings, the counsel appearing on behalf of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company admitted that the property (97.66 sq.yards) had already been sold to the petitioner prior to the mortgage and that the respondent suppressed the said fact.The Hon’ble Madras High Court held that the respondent/defendant had no title to mortgage the property after execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and that Cholamandalam Finance did not press its claim over the said extent. The CMA was disposed of, on 06.08.2020, and the same attained finality. It is further submitted that the trial Court, without considering 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.1690 of 2025 Ex.P8 (copy of the judgment in CMA No.3551 of 2019) and Ex.P9 (rental demand slip for the period from 01.01.2006 to 28.02.2017), erroneously relied upon Ex.R1, the unregistered “Oppandha Pathram” dated 27.01.2016, which was executed between the late father of the petitioner/plaintiff and the husband of the respondent/defendant, and dismissed the petitioner’s application holding that the petitioner failed to establish the landlord–tenant relationship. 5. The respondent/defendant filed a counter in support of her case stating interalia that having regard to primary object of Order XV-A and Section 151 CPC, considering the nature of dispute in this suit and the facts of case, without proving the landlord and tenant relationship, the petitioner is not entitled for eviction of the respondent. It is also stated that in view of the “Voppanda Patram” dated 27.01.2016, the sale deed dated 31.12.2015 should be considered as a mortgage, as it involves a transfer of ownership as security for a debt, and further stated that the lack of free consent of parties capable of entering into a contract are not valid contracts under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in Asha Rani Gupta vs. Vineet Kumar 1, wherein, under similar circumstances, it was held as under: “30. Reverting to the provisions under consideration, it is noticed that while the first part of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 Order 15 CPC requires deposit of the admitted due amount of rent together with interest, the second part thereof mandates that 1 in (2023) 20 Supreme Court Cases 273 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.1690 of 2025 whether or not the tenant admits the amount to be due, he has to, throughout the continuation of the suit, regularly deposit monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual. Read as a whole, it is but clear that Order 15 Rule 5 CPC embodies the fundamental principle that there is no holidaying for a tenant in payment of rent or damages for use and occupation, whether the lease is subsisting or it has been determined. The only basic requirement in the suit of the nature envisaged by Order 15 Rule 5 CPC is the character of the defendant as being the lessee/tenant in the suit premises. Viewed from this angle, we are not inclined to accept the line of thought in some of the decisions of the High Court that in every case of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, the defendant in suit for eviction and recovery of rent/damages could enjoy holidays as regards payment of rent. 41. In the context of the proposition of denial of title of the plaintiff and denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, we may also observe that such a denial simpliciter does not and cannot absolve the lessee/tenant to deposit the due amount of rent/damages for use and occupation, unless he could show having made such payment in a lawful and bona fide manner. Of course, the question of bona fide is a question of fact, to be determined in every case with reference to its facts but, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that by merely denying the title of the plaintiff or relationship of landlord-tenant/lessor-lessee, a defendant of the suit of the present nature could enjoy the property during the pendency of the suit without depositing the amount of rent/damages.” 7. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for eviction solely basing upon a registered sale deed dated 31.12.2015, vide document No.5294/2015, executed by the respondent/defendant in his favour for valid sale consideration. The petitioner has also established that the Hon’ble Madras High Court, in CMA No.3551 of 2019, recorded that the said sale deed was prior to the mortgage and that the 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.1690 of 2025 respondent had no title thereafter to create any encumbrance on the property. The said judgment (Ex.P8) has attained finality. 8. The trial Court, without properly appreciating these documents, solely relied upon Ex.R1 “Oppandha Pathram,” an unregistered document, and dismissed the application. The finding of the trial Court that the petitioner failed to prove the landlord–tenant relationship is unsustainable, as the existence of the sale deed and the subsequent letting out of the property to the respondent are undisputed. The respondent’s continued occupation without payment of rent cannot be permitted in law. 9. In view of the above, this Court finds that the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in I.A. No.1655 of 2023 in O.S. No.386 of 2019 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakinada, is liable to be set-aside. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 09.05.2025. Consequently, I.A.No.1655 of 2023 in O.S.No.386 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakinada, stands allowed, directing the respondent/defendant to deposit the arrears of rent as claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 06.11.2025. KGR