This second appeal against an eviction decree was dismissed after the respondent advocate submitted that the appellant had vacated the premises five years ago and deposited the arrent rent, rendering the appeal devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.A. No.66 of 1986
05.09.2017 Heard Mr. Panda, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. B. Das, learned ad
vocate for the respondent.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1986 and 1
4.02.1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Puri in T.A. No. 47/34 of 1982/81 a
ffirming the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1981 and 10.11.1981 respectively passed by Smt. B
. Devi, learned Munsif, Bhubaneswar in O.S. No. 55/79 of 1980-81.
The appellant was occupying the portion of the respondents building.
Since he did not vacate, the respondent as plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction. The suit
was decreed. The defendant unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of the learned
trial court before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.A. No. 47/34 of 198
2/81, which was dismissed.
In course of hearing, Mr. B. Das, learned advocate for the respondent submits
that defendant-appellant has left the premises five years ago. Thus nothing survives. He fur
ther submits that pursuant to the direction of the learned trial court, the defendant has depo
sited amount towards arrear rent. The same was lying deposited before the learned executing co
urt. Thus a direction may be issued to the learned executing court to disburse the amount.
In view of the fact that the defendant has vacated the premises, the learned e
xecuting court shall disburse the amount, if there is no other impediment.
The second appeal is dismissed.
Dr.A.K.Rath, J.
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal survives when the appellant has vacated the premises and deposited arrear rent pursuant to the trial court's direction.
Appellant
Respondent
Dr. A.K. Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court