Partly allowed

Sandeep Kumar v. Prem Dass

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Nov 2011CR/4029/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition modified an order by the District Judge removing the condition requiring deposit of mesne profits while the appeal was pending, as such condition imposed later on appeal without prior direction was not validly enforced for eviction during the appeal period.

What did the court decide?

The condition requiring deposit of mesne profits @ Rs.50/- per day is removed from the order dated 16.5.2011 pending the appeal.

Sandeep Kumar Vs Prem Dass — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No.4029 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.4029 of 2011 Date of decision:-29.11.2011

Sandeep Kumar Verma

...Petitioner

Versus

Prem Dass

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present:- Mr. Raj Kumar Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)

¶14

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶15

Vide order dated 15.4.2011 while admitting the appeal a direction was given to enable the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent upto date. Operation of the judgment and decree dated 09.3.2011 was stayed subject to this condition. It is not disputed between the parties that the arrears of rent was deposited till 22.2.2011. However, as per the decree passed by the trial Court, a sum of Rs.8750/- was not deposited as arrears of rent as directed vide order dated 15.4.2011. The present appellant filed an appeal against the order was and granted two days time to

¶16

Civil Revision No.4029 of 2011

¶17

-2-

¶18

deposit Rs.8750/- on 16.5.2011. He deposited Rs.8750/- on 18.5.2011. However, in the appeal on 16.5.2011 a direction was given to the tenant to deposit mesne profits @ Rs.50/- per day w.e.f. 1.1.2001 to upto date within the same period. This amount has not been deposited by the appellant on the ground that while passing the stay order on 15.4.2011 this condition was not imposed by the District Judge, Ambala while admitting the appeal.

¶19

Counsel for the respondent states that the appellant was granted two days time and he was directed to deposited Rs.50/- per day w.e.f. 1.1.2001 to upto date, which he has not done till date. There was no compliance of the stay and he is liable to be evicted from the shop in question.

¶20

Perusal of the order dated 15.4.2011 shows that there was no condition imposed to deposit mesne profits @ Rs.50/per day w.e.f. 1.1.2001 to upto date. The order has been reviewed on appeal, filed by the tenant by making the condition to pay mesne profit. This civil revision is partly allowed and order dated 16.5.2011 is modified to the extent that the condition of depositing mesne profit is not required till the appeal is pending.

¶21

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

¶22

November 29, 2011 Vijay Asija

Sandeep Kumar v. Prem Dass

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. Prem Dass

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Gupta and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Inderjeet Sandhi and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Balwan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

T.D. Arora Vs State of Haryana

Aarti and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.