Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
V. Brahmachary vs Lakshminarayana on 14 July, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(5)ALD231
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This civil revision petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2003 in S.C. No.289 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
2. Petitioner is tenant of the respondent in respect of non-residential premises. Disputes arose between them. The respondent initiated proceedings to evict the petitioner and filed R.C. No.32 of 1998 before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The petitioner, in turn, filed O.S. No.5182 of 1997 in the Court of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for injunction against the respondent on the ground that latter was interfering with his possession.
3. The respondent filed S.C. No.289 of 2002 for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,600/-representing the rents for the period September 2000 to August, 2001. The Trial Court decreed the suit. Hence, this revision.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of high-handed interference by the respondent, the petitioner was prevented from enjoying the possession of the premises, and as such, he is not under obligation to pay the rent for the period in question. Placing reliance upon the decree in O.S. No.5182 of 1997 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, learned Counsel submits that the same discloses that the inference by the respondent continued and on that account, the respondent is not entitled to recover the rents.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that as long as the relationship of landlord and tenant and non-payment of rent for the period referred to above is not disputed, the petitioner is under obligation to pay the rent and no interference is called for with the decree under revision.
6. The suit was filed for recovery of rent for the period September, 2000 to August, 2001. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner is not in dispute. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for eviction. The petitioner, in turn, filed a suit for injunction against the respondent. That, however, is a different aspect altogether. The petitioner did not dispute that he has not paid the rent for the period referred to above. However, he pleaded justification for non-payment of the rent. According to him, despite the order of temporary injunction and thereafter perpetual injunction, the respondent prevented him from enjoying the possession of the premises and in that view of the matter, he is not under obligation to pay the rent. Such a plea can never be accepted.
7. The obligation to pay the rent flows from the existence of lease between the petitioner and the respondent. The obligation would cease only when such relationship comes to an end either through the acts of parties or orders of Court. Even a misdemeanor on the part of a landlord does not relieve the tenant of his obligation to pay the rents. Payment of rent being the sine qua non of a lease, a declaration by a tenant, of the intention not to pay the rents, by itself would bring an end to the lease.
8. Anticipating interference from the respondent, the petitioner filed the suit and obtained a decree of perpetual injunction. He is armed with that decree to prevent any kind of interference by the respondent. Whatever be the truth or otherwise of the allegation as to interference by the respondent, as long as the relationship of tenant and landlord is in subsistence, the petitioner is under obligation to pay the rents and that is what exactly the Trial Court directed. Existence of such a decree cannot be a ruse to evade payment of rent. The petitioner cannot have the luxury of continuing as tenant without paying the rents. The decree of the Trial Court does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity or illegality.
9. The civil revision petition is accordingly, dismissed.