IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 451 of 2009 (Appeal under Section ____ against the order/decree in OS no. : 148 of 2008 dated 06/03/2009 on the file of the court of the I Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Secunderabad) Between: M/s. Pace Furniture A Partnership Firm, O/o. Premise No. 935, GKS Towers, Ponnamalle, High Road, Killpack,Chennai-84, Having Branch at LGF-1,Ashoka Bhoopal Chambers, 1-8-271 to 272, Part of 1-8-301, S.P.Road,Secunderabad. .... APPELLANT AND 1 V. Vajeder S/o. Late R D Bhoopal, R/o. Plot No. 512/111, Road No. 88, Jubille Hills, Hyderabad. 2 V. Venu Vinod S/o. Late R D Bhoopal, R/o. 25, BNR Colony, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.R.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.HANUMANTHA RAO The Court delivered the following JUDGEMENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLEANEOUS APPEAL No.451 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar) When the Vacate Stay Petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 06.03.2009, passed by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No.4096 of 2008 in O.S.No.148 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the lower Court. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners/plaintiffs instituted the suit in O.S.No.148 of 2008 seeking eviction of the respondent from the suit schedule premises. The specific case of the petitioners is that they are absolute owners of the suit schedule premises admeasuring 1500 Sq.ft each situated in LGF-I and LGF-II, bearing Municipal Nos.1-8- 271 to 272 and part of 1-8-301, Ashok Bhoopal Chambers, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad. The schedule premises was leased out to the respondent for a period of six years from 01.11.2001 to 30.10.2007, under lease agreement dated 25.09.2001. After expiry of the lease period, a letter was addressed to the respondent to vacate the suit schedule premises. The respondent paid rent up to August, 2008 and subsequently failed to pay the rents from September, 2008 to December, 2008. Further, the respondent has been making efforts to move out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, and hence, the petitioners would not be able to recover the amounts even if a decree is passed against the respondent and the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, the petitioners filed the above said I.A seeking a direction to the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent for four months i.e., from September, 2008 to December, 2008, amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-, and continue to deposit monthly rents regularly, failing which, to attach the movable properties of the respondent as described in the petition. On behalf of the respondent, its Branch Manager, Sri Vikram Grover, filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that the petition is not maintainable; that the respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.3 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderbad against the petitioners and the Electricity Board seeking mandatory injunction for restoration of power supply to the suit schedule premises vide Service Connection No.D-8853; that I.A.No.185 of 2008 filed in the said suit was allowed by order dated 30.01.2008 directing restoration of power supply to the respondent; that against the said order dated 30.01.2008, the petitioners preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.134 of 2008 before this Court and the same was allowed by order dated 03.03.2008 and that once again the electricity supply was disconnected. The further case of respondent is that in C.M.A.No.134 of 2008 the main contention of the petitioners is that the respondent tampered with the electricity supply and that the second petitioner in I.A.No.4096 of 2008 in O.S.No.148 of 2008, had addressed a letter dated 14.01.2008 to the Electricity Department requesting to disconnect power supply to the schedule premises, falsely contending that they want to dismantle the interiors in the premises, without disclosing that the respondent had been in occupation of the said premises and carrying on business. It is also the case of the respondent that with regard to the allegation of tampering electricity supply vide Service Connection No.D-8853 to the schedule premises, he obtained information under Right to Information Act from APCPDCL, which by letter dated 30.08.2008 informed that there is no such tampering. The respondent is taking appropriate steps against the petitioners for misleading the Court, and seeking to review the order in C.M.A.No.134 of 2008. The further case of the respondent is that since April, 2008, there is no power supply to the schedule premises, and therefore, they are unable to carry on the business; that the petitioners disconnected the amenity of water supply also to the schedule premises; that in spite of the illegal acts of the petitioners, the respondent continued to pay the rents up to the month of August, 2008 at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per month, which includes the hire charges also; and that the petitioners have to ensure that the respondent enjoys the property with all the amenities attached to it as were at its inception. The specific case of the respondent is that the petitioners having deliberately disconnected the amenities of the electricity and water to the schedule premises cannot seek payment of the agreed rents. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioners are holding a huge amount of Rs.6,75,000/- deposited by it and the contention of the petitioners that the respondent would not be in a position to pay the arrears of rent and is moving out of the jurisdiction is not only false but misleading. The learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, having considered the rival contentions, observed that the respondent admitted his liability to pay the rents at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per month to the premises and also admitted that it has not paid the rents from September, 2008 since power supply was disconnected; that the power supply was disconnected by the Electricity Department on the allegation that the respondent tampered with the power supply and committed pilferage of electricity; and that though a direction was given by the Court to the Electricity Department to restore the power supply, the same was challenged before this Court and the action of the Electricity Department was upheld. Therefore, the learned Judge by the impugned order, dated 06.03.2009, directed the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per month and continue to deposit the rent at the same rate in the future till the disposal of the suit. The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent submitted that the respondent being a tenant is entitled to enjoy all the amenities and without the amenities it cannot enjoy the property. It is his submission that the second respondent herein, who is the second petitioner in I.A.No.4096 of 2008 in O.S.No.148 of 2008, addressed a letter dated 14.01.2008 to the Electricity Department to disconnect power supply to Meter Service Connection No.D-8853 on the ground that they were dismantling the interiors, and accordingly the power supply was disconnected on 18.01.2008. It is also his submission that the letter dated 30.08.2008 sent by the Divisional Engineer, Electricity Operations, Secunderabad Division to one R. Chandra Shekar Reddy, shows that no theft or tampering case is picked against Service Connection No.D-8853. Thus, the main submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that there was no tampering or pilferage of electricity with regard to service connection No.D8853 and the said facts were not taken into consideration by this Court in C.M.A.No.134 of 2008. It is further submitted that challenging the judgment dated 03.03.2008 passed in the said C.M.A a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court and unfortunately the same was dismissed; and that the respondent is taking steps to file a review petition seeking review of the orders passed in the said C.M.A. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the I.A. may be dismissed since no direction can be issued to the appellant to deposit the rents without providing the amenities. The learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners submitted that the order passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.134 of 2008 had attained a finality, more particularly in view of dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant challenging the said order, and as it was specifically held that the respondent is not entitled to claim any amenities to the schedule premises. It is also his submission that the appellant has filed O.S.No.3 of 2008 along with I.A.No.185 of 2008 seeking temporary injunction and the said I.A was allowed directing restoration of amenities, and that once a final order has been passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.134 of 2008, which was preferred against the said I.A.No.185 of 2008, the appellant cannot plead amenities as a condition for payment of rents in this appeal. It is also submitted that the appellant is not paying rents since September, 2008 at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per month and is not even paying the maintenance charges. The only point that arise for consideration is whether the appellant is liable to pay the admitted rents or not. It is not in dispute that the admitted enhanced rent is Rs.75,000/- per month. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has not paid the rents since September, 2008. As far as the issue of amenities is concerned, the appellant filed O.S.No.3 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for restoration of power supply and also filed I.A.No.185 of 2008 seeking interim direction. Though the said I.A was allowed directing restoration of power supply and all amenities, this Court in C.M.A.No.134 of 2008 categorically held that the appellant herein prima facie cannot claim any manner of right over the suit premises nor claim amenities and the said observation attained finality, on dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant seeking leave to file an appeal against the order in the said C.M.A. In view of the same, the appellant has to work out its remedies in the pending suit for restoration of amenities, if any. Since, the above said letters dated 14.01.2008 and 30.08.2008 are subject to proof and the relevancy in suit O.S.No.3 of 2004, we are not inclined to express any opinion about the genuineness and correctness of the contents of the said letters. In view of the above discussion, we hold that there are no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is at liberty to work out his remedies for restoration of amenities, if any, before any other forum. No order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J 20th August, 2009 Note: Furnish CC in one week. (B/o.) MD/VA