9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the respondents from the suit schedule properties and to direct the respondents to pay Rs. 12,87,452/- along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till realization and also to pay damages @ Rs. 7,00,000/- per month from the date of the suit till the date of vacating and handing over possession of the suit schedule properties. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents had not been paying rents from November, 2018 till January, 2019 including maintenance and GST; that they issued legal notice to the respondents on 25.01.2019 terminating the lease; and so they are entitled to damages also at Rs. 7,00,000/- per month. 5. Written statement was filed on 26.06.2019 by the 1st respondent opposing the suit clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P.No.263 of 2020 10. In the meantime, the petitioners had filed C.R.P.No.263 of 2020 challenging the order dt.27.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.451 of 2019 contending that 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 Court below had incorrectly directed the respondents to pay rents only from December, 2018. It was also contended that there is liability to pay Goods and Service Tax on the rents payable by the respondents to the petitioners, and that the said liability should also be discharged by the respondents; and though this contention was raised in the Court below, it did not advert to this point when it passed the order on 27.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Additional Chief Judge and were ready to deposit the same to the credit of the suit and the said amount is towards four (4) months rent after deducting TDS. 14. By order dt.03.02.2020, the Court below dismissed the said Application observing that there are many contentious issues to be tried, that the counter claim of the respondents is also to be tried by framing appropriate issues, and that the defence of the respondents in the written statement which also contains their counter claim, cannot be struck off. 15. Assailing the same, the petitioners fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners. They again referred to the counter claim filed by them. They also referred to certain Government Orders issued by the State of Telangana directing the property owners to defer collection of monthly rents for three months. 18. The respondents thus admitted that the rents were due for six months and because there is pandemic of Covid-19, it would be unfair and unjust on the part of the petitioners to expect the tenants to pay rents. 19. By order dt.02.11.2020, the Court below disposed of I.A.No.597 of 2020 observing that the respondents should pay Rs. 4,13,545/- from October, 2020 without any further default and directed the parties to get ready for trial. It noted that it appeared from the record that the respondents were s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in I.A.No.597 of 2020 by the Court below about non-compliance by the respondents of the order passed by this Court on 12.03.2020 in C.R.P.No.263 of 2020, the Court below had no choice except to strike off the defence of the respondents, and there is no necessity for 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. Contention of Counsel for respondents 25. Sri Sunil, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Chandrasen Law Offices appearing for the respondents however contended that since only small portion of the amount was found to have been defaulted by the respondents, the Court should take lenient view of the matter and allow the trial to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned to receive any payments, then permission of the Court should have been taken to deposit the same in the Court. 33. 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.008844 dt.24.08.2020. 34. The rents for February and March, 2019 were deposited vide D.D.No.009067 dt.03.10.2020 and D.D.No.009076 dt.09.10.2020. 35. Even according to the Court below, from April, 2019 to September, 2020, no deposits have been made and no amount was credited towards GST to the Competent Authority under the GST Act. 36. In the order passed by it on 02.11.2020 in I.A.No.597 of 2020, the Court below had observed as under: "Therefore, as seen from the cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
