This court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order directing the petitioner to deposit admitted arrears of rent pending suit under Order 15 Rule 1-A CPC, finding no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; four weeks time granted to deposit arrears.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4427 OF
2011
ORDER:
This revision is filed against the order dated 26.08.2011 passed in I.A.No.368 of 2010 in O.S.No. 398 of 2010 by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit viz., O.S.No. 398 of 2010. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed an application viz., I.A.No. 368 of 2010 under Order 15-A CPC, to direct the respondent-defendant to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 1,68,000/- @ of Rs. 14,000/per month from 1.12.2008 to 1.11.2009 within one week. The Court below allowed that application and directed the respondent to deposit the arrears to the credit of the suit being the arrears of admitted rents from November 2009 to till July 2010 and shall continue to deposit the future rents of Rs. 5,950/- per month till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, defendant in the suit
filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the court below failed to consider the case of the petitioner in correct perspective and it passed an erroneous order against the principles of natural justice.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order passed by the Court below is quite reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record.
There is no dispute with regard to landlord and tenancy relationship and the respondent herein filed I.A to give direction to the petitioner herein to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- per month from 1.12.2008 to 1.11.2009 for which, the respondent has not filed any document. Basing on Ex. B1, the admitted rent is only Rs. 5,950/- therefore, the court below rightly directed the petitioner herein to deposit the amount of arrears to the credit of the suit being arrears of admitted rents from November 2009 to July 2010 and
shall continue to deposit the future rents of Rs. 5,950/- per month till the disposal of the suit. Hence, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, four weeks time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent and on such deposit, the respondent herein is at liberty to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
DATE: 18th November 2011 KA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Court below's order directing the petitioner to deposit admitted arrears of rent pending suit under Order 15 Rule 1-A CPC.
Whether the Court below acted in accordance with the evidence of admitted rent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Defendant
Respondent
GHULAM MOHAMMED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
