IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.868 and 577 of 2022

CRP No.868 of 2022

Between:

Pilli Durga Prasad, S/o Varahala Rao, aged 56 years,

Proprietor, Rep. of M/s. Aditya Motors, D.No.5-7/8-56/76-A,
Rajiv Sarma Nagar, Behind Somya Theatre and Sai Ram
Theatre, Vijayawada – 520 001, A.P.

… Petitioner/Defendant No.1

and

Dogiparthi Venkata Satish, S/o Late Poornachandra Rao,

aged 43 years, R/o Venkata Enclave, Flat No.8, 3rd Floor,
1/5, Ramannapet, Guntur and four others.

… Respondents/Plaintiffs/Defendants

Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. C. Sindhu Kumari

Counsel for respondent : Smt. V. Dyumani

Nos.1 and 2

CRP No.577 of 2022

Between:

M/s. Aditya Motors, Rep. by P.D. Prasad, S/o Varahala Rao,

aged 65 years, Bandar Road, Vijayawada.
… Petitioner/Defendant No.1
And
Page 2 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

Dogiparthi Venkata Satish, S/o Late Poornachandra Rao,

R/o Venkatesh Enclave, Plat No.8, 1/5, Ramannapeta,
Guntur and another.

… Respondents/Plaintiffs

Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. C. Sindhu Kumari

Counsel for respondents : Smt. V. Dyumani

: COMMON ORDER :

CRP No.868 of 2022 is filed by defendant No.1 against

order date 22.03.2022 in I.A.No.1012 of 2016 in O.S.No.118 of

2012 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur.

2. CRP No.577 of 2022 is filed by defendant No.1 (as per

unamended cause title) aggrieved by the action in not receiving

petition filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen I.A.No.1012 of

2016 in O.S.No.118 of 2012 on the file of learned IV Additional

District Judge, Guntur.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein being plaintiffs filed

suit O.S.No.118 of 2012 against petitioner/defendant No.1

and other respondents/defendants seeking their eviction

from the plaint schedule premises and further to direct the

defendants to pay an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- towards use

and unauthorized occupation of the suit schedule premises

Page 3 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

and also to direct the defendants to pay arrears of rents from

01.04.2007.

4. Originally the suit was filed against Aditya Motors

represented by P.D. Prasad. Later, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.237

of 2018 seeking amendment of defendant No.1 and the same

was allowed by order dated 28.03.2018. By virtue of

amendment, defendant No.1 was described as Pilli Durga

Prasad, S/o Varahala Rao, Rep. of Aditya Motors.

5. In the plaint, it was contended that plaintiffs are

owners of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1

approached plaintiff No.1 with a request to lease out the suit

schedule property. Accordingly, on 13.04.2005, defendant

No.1 entered into a lease agreement with plaintiff No.1 and

the same was registered as document No.5120 of 2005.

Without the consent of plaintiffs, defendant No.1 inducted

defendant No.2 into the suit schedule premises and

defendant Nos.3 and 4 are Directors of defendant No.2

company. Defendant No.1 never acted as per the agreement.

Defendant No.1 is continuing in the premises even after lapse

of the agreement and in fact, violated conditions of the lease

agreement. As per clause 11 of the lease agreement soon after

Page 4 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

completion of the lease period, defendant No.1 agreed to

vacate the premises and deliver physical possession. The

other condition is that defendant No.1 agreed to increase the

rent by 10% after lapse of first two years, but it did not do so.

Defendants have no right over the suit schedule premises. On

16.12.2011 a quit notice was issued by the plaintiffs.

Defendants, though acknowledged the notice, did not vacate

the premises. With these averments, in brief, suit was filed

for the reliefs stated supra.

6. Pending the suit, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.611 of 2013

under Order XV-A and Section 151 of CPC to direct the

defendants to deposit admitted rent and damages into the

Court and to strike off defence of the respondents in the

event of their non-deposit of admitted arrears of rent and

damages. Later the I.A. was renumbered as I.A.No.1012 of

2016.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was

contended that defendants took the suit schedule premises

on lease on 13.04.2005 on a monthly rent of Rs.41,500/-.

They agreed to enhance the rent at the rate of 10% on the

existing rent for every two years and also agreed to deliver the
Page 5 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

possession of the suit schedule property on 31.03.2010.

Defendants paid admitted rent till 31.03.2010 without paying

the enhanced rent as per lease deed. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and

4 were set ex parte and defendant No.3 is contesting the suit

by filing written statement without depositing arrears of

admitted rent and damages for their unauthorized use and

occupation. Hence, the application was filed.

8. Defendant No.3 filed counter and opposed the

application. In the counter, it was contended that plaintiffs

made discussions with defendant No.1-Proprietor and agreed

to let out suit schedule premises for nine years with renewal

of further period of nine years. As per the understanding

plaintiff No.1, on behalf of plaintiff No.2 gave letter of offer,

dated 28.01.2005 signed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of

Proprietor of defendant No.1. After several sittings, parties

came to understanding that defendant No.2 shall pay

Rs.6,00,000/- as advance and period of lease is nine years

with renewal of further nine years. Rent fixed is Rs.41,500/-

payable by defendant No.2 and enhancement is by 10% after

completion of five years. Defendant No.2 also be treated as

tenant for all purposes. Plaintiffs specifically agreed that

either defendant No.1 or defendant No.2 or their associates

Page 6 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

can do business in the suit schedule premises. Accordingly,

the lease deed was executed on 13.05.2005 and the same

was registered. Defendant No.2 paid Rs.3,00,000/- each to

plaintiff No.1 through pay order Nos.690442 and 690443

dated 14.02.2005. From the beginning defendant No.3 has

been paying rents to plaintiff No.1 through cheques. Plaintiff

No.1 has been encashing the same without any objection.

Defendant Nos.1 and 2, before completion of five years

period, in the first week of December, 2009 itself sent

registered letter to plaintiff No.1 to grant further lease in the

premises in terms of renewal clause in the registered lease

deed. However, plaintiffs neither sent reply nor executed lease

deed and stopped receiving rents from 01.04.2010 by

returning cheques tendered by them. Suit is not

maintainable. Quit notice is pre-matured one. Defendant

No.1 is a partnership firm. Defendant No.2 has no objection

to pay the rents provided plaintiffs give up their false

contention and accept defendant No.2 as tenant. Eventually

prayed to dismiss the application.

9. Initially defendant No.1 was set ex parte in I.A. Later,

exparte order was set aside. Defendant No.1 filed counter and

contended that defendant No.2 has been doing business in

Page 7 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

the suit schedule premises and has been paying rent to the

plaintiffs. The representative of defendant No.2, Madhavi,

D/o Gali Banerjee is in no way concerned with the company.

Defendant No.1 never did business in the suit schedule

premises and never paid rents. Cause title to the petition is

not correct and the amendments made in the plaint were not

carried out in the petition. Eventually prayed to dismiss the

petition.

10. By order dated 22.03.2022, trial Court allowed the

application and directed defendants to deposit an amount of

Rs.96,04,243/- towards arrears of rent of suit schedule

premises from 01.04.2010 to 15.12.2021 and previous

arrears/rent within fifteen days from the date of said order,

failing which, defence of the defendants is deemed to be

struck off. Plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the amount

after depositing under acknowledgment without furnishing

any security. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 filed

CRP 868 of 2022.

11. Defendant No.1 filed petition under Section 151 of CPC

to reopen I.A.No.1012 of 2016, on 22.03.2022 i.e. on the date

when order was pronounced in I.A.No.1012 of 2016.

Page 8 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

Complaining non receiving of the same, CRP No.577 of 2022

is filed.

12. Heard Sri S.S. Prasad, learned counsel representing

Ms. C. Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel for the

petitioner/defendant No.1 and Smt. V. Dyumani, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs. Though Sri S.

Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.3 and 4/defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed vakalat, no

arguments were advanced.

13. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that there is no

jural relationship between the parties since the lease was

terminated by issuing quit notice. He would also submit that

petitioner/defendant No.1 is not tenant and defendant No.2

is claiming status of tenant of the plaintiffs. Defendants

cannot be directed to pay the arrears of rent since lease was

terminated by issuing quit notice and application under

Order XV-A does not lie. He would submit that the Court

below did not give finding regarding jural relationship while

allowing the application. He would submit that acceptance of

rent after quit notice would amount to waiver.

Page 9 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

14. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the

Court refused to receive petition filed by defendant No.1 to

reopen I.A.No.1012 of 2016. He would submit that any I.A.

filed must be numbered and it needs to be decided after

inviting counter from the respondents. Hence, prayed to allow

the revisions.

15. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs

would contend that initially, the suit was filed against Aditya

Motors, represented by P.D. Prasad. Later plaintiffs came to

know that Pilli Durga Prasad was representing M/s. Aditya

Motors and hence, got the cause title amended by filing

I.A.No.237 of 2018. She submits that defendant No.1 entered

into a lease agreement with plaintiffs and the same was

registered on 13.04.2005 and defendant No.1 inducted

defendant No.2 without permission of the plaintiffs. The suit

was filed in the year, 2012 and immediately I.A.No.611 of

2013 was filed under Order XV-A of CPC. However, the same

was renumbered as I.A.No.1012 of 2016. She would submit

that as per the lease deed, rent will be enhanced for every two

years. She further submits that since defendants are

protracting the proceedings, plaintiffs filed two civil revision

petitions seeking expedite disposal of the suit. She submits

Page 10 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

that initially defendant No.1 remained exparte in the

interlocutory application. Later filed petition to set aside ex

parte order and to receive counter. They were allowed.

Respondent No.1 filed counter on 07.03.2022. After hearing

arguments and reply to arguments, I.A.No.1012 of 2016 was

reserved for orders. After issuing notice to learned counsel

and on affixing notice in the notice board, order was

pronounced on 22.03.2022. She submits that on the date of

pronouncement of order, defendant No.1 filed a petition to

reopen I.A.No.1012 of 2016. Thus, prayed to dismiss the

revisions.

16. The points for consideration are:

(1) Whether directing defendants to deposit

arrears of rent from 01.04.2010 to 15.12.2021 is in
accordance with Order XV-A of CPC?

(2) Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction

in ordering I.A.No.1012 of 2016?

17. Initially, suit O.S.No.118 of 2012 was filed on the file of

learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur, describing

defendant No.1 as Aditya Motors represented by P.D. Prasad.

However, later by filing I.A.No.237 of 2018, plaintiffs sought

for amendment of defendant No.1. Plaintiffs also filed other

Page 11 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

applications seeking amendments and they were allowed.

Aggrieved by the orders, defendant No.1 filed five civil revision

petitions before this Court. CRP No.4302 of 2018 was filed

against order in I.A.No.237 of 2018. Learned Single Judge of

this Court dismissed said revisions by common order, dated

12.06.2019 by observing as under:

“… The law is well settled that a proprietary concern

is not legal entity and when an individual carries on
business in a name or style other than his own name,
he cannot sue in the trading name. …”

18. Learned Single Judge placed reliance on Shankar

Finance and Investments vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and

Ors.1 and Bhagawati Vanaspati Traders v. Senior

Superintendent of Post Offices2 and concluded as follows:

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances and legal

position obtaining, this Court finds that the amendment
being sought for by the plaintiffs herein insofar as the
description of the 1st defendant can be permitted in the
interests of justice.”

19. Pursuant to dismissal of CRPs, as seen from the docket

proceedings, defendant No.1 filed a petition to set aside ex

parte order passed in I.A.No.1012 of 2016 and later filed

1
AIR 2009 SC 422
2
AIR 2015 SC 901
Page 12 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

counter. After hearing learned counsel, I.A. was reserved for

orders. On 22.03.2022, by issuing notice to the learned

counsel and affixing notice on the notice board, order was

pronounced.

20. The contention of learned Senior Counsel that by virtue

of the amendment of cause title of defendant No.1, suit itself

is to be dismissed, may not stand legal scrutiny by virtue of

the order in CRP No.4203 of 2018. This Court, in fact, is not

going into those aspects in this application under Order XV-A

of CPC.

21. The other contention of learned Senior Counsel that by

issuing legal notice, lease was terminated and hence, Court

cannot order deposit of admitted rents under Order XV-A,

also falls to ground. This court is not persuaded by the said

argument of the learned senior counsel. Mere acceptance of

rents after issuance of legal notice (quit notice), does not

amount to waiver.

22. In Shanti Prasad Devi and Anr. Vs. Shankar Mahto

and Ors.3, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that on expiry

of period of lease, mere acceptance of rent for the subsequent

3
2005 (5) SCC 543
Page 13 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

months in which the lessee continued to occupy the lease

premises cannot be said to be a conduct signifying “assent” to

the continuance of the lease even after expiry of lease period.

23. As per the lease deed, dated 13.04.2005, rent shall be

increased by 10% for every two years on the existing rent.

24. As stated supra, defendant No.1 was set ex parte.

Defendant No.3 filed written statement and is contesting the

suit. As per proceedings, issues were framed on 03.07.2013.

PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked.

Defendant No.2 filed suit O.S.No.460 of 2012 on the file of

learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge against APCPDCL for

mandatory injunction and other reliefs. Said suit was also

transferred to learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur to

be tried along with O.S.No.118 of 2012 and the same was

renumbered as O.S.No. 16 of 2016.

25. Plaintiffs filed CRP No.1240 of 2017 seeking expedite

disposal of suit and the same was disposed of on 10.03.2017.

Plaintiffs again filed I.A.No.369 of 2018 and said CRP was

disposed of on 25.01.2018 directing lower court to dispose of

the suit within two months.

Page 14 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

26. In the first instance, on 14.02.2022 I.A. 1012 of 2016

was reserved for orders. Defendant No.1/petitioner filed

I.A.Nos.138 to 140 of 2022 to reopen the petition, to set aside

ex parte order, to receive counter. They were allowed.

I.A.No.1012 of 2016 was posted to 07.03.2022. On

07.03.2022 after hearing arguments, I.A. was reserved, for

orders. However, the suit was posted to 25.03.2022. After

issuing notice to the Advocates and affixing notice on notice

board, order was pronounced on 22.03.2022.

27. Defendant No.2 (respondent No.3 herein) filed counter

and pleaded that defendant No.2 is also tenant of premises

though lease deed was executed in favour of defendant No.1.

Defendant No.2 also pleaded no objection to pay rents

provided plaintiffs have to give up their false contention and

accept defendant No.2 as tenant.

28. Trial Court at para No.13 of the order, recorded finding

and discussed about calculation memo filed by defendant

No.2. As seen from the order of the trial Court, defendant

No.2 filed memo showing the rents to be paid as

Rs.59,34,500/-. Defendant No.2 claims to have made certain

payments and after deductions net arrears of rent to be paid

Page 15 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

is Rs.14,88,672/-. Defendant No.2 intended to deposit

Rs.10,00,000/- under protest.

29. Monthly rent, as per the lease agreement dated

13.04.2005 is Rs.41,500/- with a clause of enhancement of

rent by 10% for every two years. Though plaintiff No.1, in

I.A.1012 of 2016 sought for deposit of damages also, trial

Court ordered for arrears of rent from 01.04.2010 to

15.12.2021 and previous rent due as per calculation memo.

Calculation of arrears of rent was mentioned at para No.11 of

the order of the trial Court. Going by the counter of defendant

No.2 (respondent No.3 herein), rent is to be paid from

01.04.2010 onwards. The calculation memo filed by the

plaintiffs would indicate enhancement of rent as per lease

deed.

30. The tabular statement extracted in the order makes it

clear that plaintiffs prepared the same as per the lease

agreement by enhancing the rent at 10%. The period is from

01.04.2010 to 15.12.2021. Trial Court on careful

consideration, by reasoned order allowed the application.

Whether the 1st defendant is tenant or not will be decided

after full-fledged trial. Out of four defendants one defendant

Page 16 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

has been contesting the suit by filing written statement as

stated supra. So far as D1 is concerned, after the common

order in revision, I.A. was filed to set aside the exparte order

etc., After, hearing R1/revision petitioner, order under

challenge was passed.

31. It is a very sorry situation that persons in occupation of

the premises, be it, D1 or D2 or other defendants, failed to

pay the rent for 12 years. Whatever the reason, I.A. filed in

the year 2013 was renumbered in 2016, and order was

passed in the year 2022. Order XV-A deals with rent admitted

and arrears of rent. It is also apt to refer to the legal maxim

‘justice delayed is justice denied’. Whenever an application is

filed under Order XV-A CPC, the Court shall deal with the

applications as expeditiously as possible. Delay in deciding

the application will result hardship to either of the parties.

32. Though the plaintiffs/petitioners prayed for damages

and interest, the trial court confined its order only to rents as

calculated by plaintiff basing on registered lease deed.

33. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in

the order under revision, which warrants interference of this

Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Page 17 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

34. Coming to CRP No.577 of 2022, revision petition is filed

aggrieved by the action of the Court below in not accepting

the I.A. filed to reopen I.A.No.1012 of 2016. It is pertinent to

mention here that D1, after amendment of cause title, filed

I.A. as per unamended cause title. However, the same was

numbered by registry.

35. The grievance of defendant No.1/revision petitioner is

that he filed IA under Section 151 of CPC to reopen

I.A.No.1012 of 2016. However, the same was returned. As can

be seen from the order, Lower Court pronounced orders in

I.A.No.1012 of 2016 on 22.03.2022. As observed supra, as

per docket proceedings, on 14.02.2022, I.A. 1012 of 2016 was

reserved for orders. At that stage, defendant No.1/petitioner

filed I.A.Nos.138 to 140 of 2022 to reopen the petition, to set

aside ex parte order, to receive counter and they were

allowed. Thereafter, after hearing arguments, I.A.No.1012 of

2016 was reserved for orders and suit was posted to

25.03.2022. Since Trial Court passed order in I.A.No.1012 of

2016, there are no merits in CRP No.577 of 2022. Moreover,

as observed supra, CRP No.577 of 2022 filed by defendant

No.1 with unamended cause title, itself is not maintainable.

Page 18 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

36. In view of the above discussion, both the revisions are

liable to be dismissed.

37. This Court on 06.05.2022 initially granted interim

suspension in CRP No.868 of 2022 and later by order dated

08.07.2022 directed revision petitioner to deposit 25%. The

amount was deposited by revision petitioner. Since revision

petitioner deposited 25% of the amount, petitioner is granted

time to deposit the remaining amount within fifteen days

from today. Revision petitioner or other defendants shall

continue to deposit rent every month, as ordered by Trial

Court, without any default. If the revision petitioner fails to

deposit the remaining amount within fifteen days, as

indicated supra, order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the trial

Court comes into operation.

38. With the above direction CRP No.868 of 2022 is

dismissed.

39. In view of the order passed in CRP No.868 of 2022, CRP

No.577 of 2022 is dismissed. No costs.

40. Since the suit is of the year 2012, trial Court shall

expedite the disposal of the suit keeping in view the circular

Page 19 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

issued by this Court vide R.O.C.No.560/OP/CELL/2022,

dated 23.11.2022 strictly in accordance with law.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications

shall stand closed.

_________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Date : 14.06.2023
ikn
Page 20 of 20 SRS,J
CRP No.868 of 2022
And 577 OF 2022

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NoS.868 AND 577 OF 2022

Date : 14.06.2023

ikn