THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.3688 of 2009 Date: 07.10.2010 Between: M/s. Associated Realtors Pvt.Ltd. Rep by Ratan Gupta, Hyderabad. ……….. Petitioner/defendant And Sri N.Maniprakash, Dirctor of P.C.E.(India) Private Limited, (For Pioneer Commercial Private Limited) Hyderabad. ……. Respondent/ Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.3688 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the decretal order dated 10.6.2009 passed in I.A.No.30 of 2009 in O.S.No.1750 of 2005 on the file of X Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby, the lower Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff to strike off the defense of the respondent/defendant. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent herein filed O.S.No.1750 of 2005 against the petitioner herein seeking his eviction from the suit schedule property and also a direction to the petitioner to pay arrears of rent at Rs.2,66,800/-, damages of Rs.3,20,000/- and future damages at Rs.10,000/- per month for use and occupation of the suit, schedule premises from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property and for costs. 4. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the petitioner/defendant has taken the portion, to an extent of 4851 square feet, on the western side of the fourth floor in Pioneer House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, on lease under a lease deed, dated 01.09.1999 on a monthly rent of Rs.33,350/- and after deduction of TDS from the monthly rent, the net payable rent comes to Rs.26,347/- per month. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner agreed to pay all the water, electricity and incidental charges and as per the agreement and understanding between the parties, the tenancy stands terminated by February, 2005. It is also the case of the respondent that he got issued a notice dated 1.2.2005 terminating the tenency w.e.f February, 2005 and that the petitioner, having received the said notice, had undertaken to vacate the premises by letter, dated 23.4.2005 and again by another letter dated 26.4.2005 he sought time till June, 2005. It is also the case of the respondent that he sold away the property to the new purchaser who directed him to handover the vacant premises. Since the petitioner did not vacate the premises by June, 2005, he had issued a notice, dated 16.6.2005 to vacate the premises. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner committed default in payment of electricity bills and arrears of rent. 5. The respondent filed an application in I.A.No.1635 of 2005 along with the suit for arrears of rent and upon hearing the parties, the lower Court by order, dated 24.11.2006, directed the petitioner to deposit monthly rent in toto on or before 5th day of every month, till the disposal of the case. The net rent payable after deduction of TDS has been determined at Rs.26,347/- as per orders in I.A.No.648 of 2006. Then the respondent filed I.A.No.30 of 2009, under Order 15 A read with Section 151 CPC, to forfeit the right of the petitioner to contest the suit mainly on the ground that he committed default in payment of rents despite Court directions. 6. The petitioner filed counter and had taken several pleas. He has denied jural relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the respondent and his specific case is that he had complied with the directions of the Court and paid the rents and that the respondent is not the Director of PCE India Private Limited, Hyderabad. The lower Court, having considered the rival contentions, observed that the petitioner had to deposit Rs.26,347/- per month from March, 2005, as per orders in I.A.No.648 of 2006 and in I.A.No.1635 of 2005, and that he has committed default in payment of rents despite Court orders, and, accordingly, allowed the petition striking the defense of the petitioner herein i.e., the defendant in the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. 7. As seen from the grounds, the main ground taken by the petitioner is that the lower Court lost sight of the plea taken by him denying the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the respondent and the other ground is the maintainability of the suit. 8. The lower Court by the order dated 24.11.2006, in I.A.No.648 of 2006, directed the defendant to deposit the rent into the Court @ Rs.26,347/- per month, after deduction of T.D.S from March, 2005 onwards. It is the case of the petitioner that the lower Court has erroneously allowed I.A.No.30 of 2009 and committed an error in appreciating the material on record and the calculations filed by both the parties. It is also his case that he paid an amount of Rs.26,347/- per month w.e.f March, 2005, and that he is not in arrears of the amounts, much less the amount claimed by the respondent in I.A.No.30 of 2009. 9. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the order passed in I.A.No.1635 of 2005, dated 18.4.2006, has become final since no revision has been filed pending disposal of the suit. It is also her submission that even when a clarification was sought with regard to the quantum of rent to be deposited into the Court in I.A.No.648 of 2006, the lower Court clarified the same and that the said order passed by the lower Court has also become final since it was also not challenged in revision. When both the orders are not challenged, the petitioner was bound to comply with the directions in those orders. As seen from the orders in I.A.No.648 of 2006, it is clear that the defendant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.26,347/- per month, after deduction of TDS. 10. In the above circumstances, the points that arise for consideration in this revision are whether TDS forms part of the rent or not? and whether the respondent is representing partnership firm or not? 11. In fact in revision, there is no need to appreciate the evidence unless and until it appears that the findings of the lower Court are not based on record and they are perverse. As seen from the bills dated 1.2.2003 sent by the respondent to the petitioner, which has been acknowledged by the petitioner, it is clear that after deducting TDS at 20.4%, the net payable rent after deducting TDS comes to Rs.23,064/- and even as per the letter dated 1.3.2003, after deducting TDS, the net payable amount comes to Rs.26,347/-. Thus, on perusal of the material furnished by both the counsel on record and as seen from the orders of the lower Court, it is clear that net payable rent after deducting TDS was Rs.26,347/- during the year 2003. It is also not in dispute that the rent is revisable after every three years. The petitioner did not furnish any record to show that he had deposited TDS with the Tax Authorities. Having deducted TDS, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to deposit the same with the tax authorities and to furnish the receipts and TDS certificate to the respondent. Admittedly, no such certificate has been furnished by the petitioner. 12. The other point is whether the respondent is representing the partnership firm or not? The learned counsel for the petitioner herein has taken me through the partnership deed, which shows that the respondent and one Dr.V.V.S.Sarma are the managing partners of the firm. It is not necessary at this stage to decide whether the names of the partners have been correctly shown in the cause title or not. The question whether the respondent has proved any jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties does not arise at this stage. Similarly the question of maintainability of suit needs no consideration at this stage. The only point that arises for consideration whether the petitioner has complied with the earlier orders of the Court or not and whether has paid total rent and TDS or not. It is clear that the petitioner failed to pay the rent plus TDS and not complied with the orders of the Court. It is not in dispute that the suit has been filed by Mr.N.Mani Prakash describing himself as Director of P.C.E. of India Private Limited (for Pioneer Commercial Private Limited). Moreover, the petitioner admittedly paid rents to the Pioneer Commercial Enterprises. It appears that on behalf of P.C.E , Dr.V.V.S.Sarma signed on the lease deed, who is one of the managing partners as per the partnership deed. It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to convince the lower Court that he has complied with the directions in I.A.1635 of 2006 and also in I.A.No.648 of 2005. 13. When the rent payable by the petitioner has been determined by the lower Court and no revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the same, he cannot now say that the lower Court committed error in accepting the calculation Memos furnished by the respondent/ plaintiff. 14. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the lower Court, and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:07.10.2010 mrb