Fixation of Provisional Rent Under Order 15A CPC Must Include All Arrears Till Date of Determination: Andhra Pradesh High Court

“Once Rent is Judicially Fixed, All Arrears Till That Date Are Payable—Not Just Up to Filing of Suit”: In a significant judgment Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected a tenant’s challenge to an order directing him to pay ₹21,10,000 as arrears of rent, fixing ₹20,000 as monthly provisional rent under Order 15A CPC. Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that when a tenant disputes rent liability, the Trial Court has the jurisdiction to determine reasonable rent and direct payment of arrears from a retrospective date, not merely up to the date of suit.

“Rule 2 of Order 15A casts an obligation on the petitioner to not only clear the arrears of rent due till the date of fixation of rent but also to clear all such arrears of rent which have fallen due after the date of fixation.”

The Court refused to interfere with the Trial Court’s order dated 31.01.2025, which directed the tenant to deposit all arrears from 16.04.2016 to 31.01.2025 and continue paying ₹20,000 per month as future rent.

“Striking Off Defence for Non-Payment is Statutory—Court Need Not Seek Separate Prayer”

The tenant, Nakul Chandra Biswal, had challenged the order passed by the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam, contending that the Court could not have directed payment of arrears beyond the date of the suit and that the observation regarding striking off defence was outside the scope of the landlord’s application.

However, the High Court rejected this, noting that Order 15A CPC itself mandates that if a tenant defaults in depositing rent as ordered, the Court shall strike off the defence.

“Any striking off the defence of the petitioner would require a separate order… However, the observations of the Trial Court are only reiterations of the provisions of Order 15A.”

“Dispute on Rent Quantum Invokes Rule 2 of Order 15A CPC—Tenant Must Abide by Judicial Fixation”

The case originated from an eviction suit (O.S. No. 1086 of 2019) filed by Badaru Srinivasa Rao, seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent. The landlord moved an application in 2019 seeking ₹12,45,000 as damages for alleged unauthorized occupation since 2015 at ₹30,000 per month. The application was initially allowed, leading to a first Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P. No. 447 of 2024), wherein the High Court partially allowed the plea, set aside the rent fixation, and directed the Trial Court to hold an enquiry and fix reasonable rent.

In compliance, the Trial Court fixed the rent at ₹20,000 per month and calculated arrears accordingly. This second challenge arose from that determination.

The tenant argued that he was only liable to deposit rent till the date of the suit or the application—not for the entire period until 2025.

The High Court disagreed:

“This fixation of rent is both in terms of Rule 2 of Order 15A of CPC as well as the directions of the learned Single Judge… The said Rule also stipulates that arrears, calculated on the basis of rent fixed by the Court, would have to be paid.”

The Court clarified that where a tenant disputes the rent amount, the case falls under the second scenario of Rule 2, which authorizes the Court to fix reasonable rent and direct deposit of past and future rent accordingly.

“Petitioner Cannot Evade Liability Merely by Raising Quantum Dispute—Fixation is Binding”

Justice Raghunandan Rao emphasized that once rent is judicially fixed, the tenant has a binding obligation to clear the entire arrears calculated thereon:

“Though the order may not clearly signify the contours set out in Rule 2 Order 15A, the order cannot be faulted… the rent fixed by the Trial Court has definitely fallen due by the time the matter has come up before this Court.”

The Court found no merit in the tenant’s claim that rent was due only till 2019 and held that the entire arrears up to 2025 must be paid.

“Application Though Filed Under Section 151 CPC Was Rightly Treated as Under Order 15A”— Substance Over Form

Interestingly, the landlord’s original application was filed under Section 151 CPC, but both the Trial Court and the High Court treated it as one under Order 15A, holding that:

“Mere mention in the petition would not determine the nature of the petition or the provisions of law which would be applicable… From the manner in which it was argued, it is clear that the application was treated under Order 15A.”

This approach highlights the functional reading of procedural law, prioritizing substance over technical formality in rent control litigation.

High Court Declines Interference, Confirms Rent Arrears Direction

Finding no procedural or legal infirmity in the Trial Court’s reasoning or order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, thereby upholding the direction to pay ₹21,10,000 as arrears and ₹20,000/month as future rent.

“I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.”

This ruling reinforces the enforcement teeth of Order 15A CPC in landlord-tenant disputes and sends a clear signal that rent fixation by Court is binding, and tenants must comply with arrears direction till such date as judicially determined, not merely until filing of suit.

Date of Decision: 22 August 2025