Telangana High Court
CRP/4804/2009 of Vijayender Jain Vs M. Lalitha on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4804 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.08.2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.1502 of
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4804 of 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of theConstitution of India challenging the order dated 07.08.2009 passedby the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagarin I.A.No.1502 of 2009 in R.A.No.6 of 2009.
It is stated that the respondent/landlady filed R.C.No.9 of 2001on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller,Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar seeking eviction of thepetitioner/tenant from the petition schedule premises on the grounds ofwillful default in payment of rent from December, 1999 to March, 2000and bonafide requirement. The learned Rent Controller, onconsidering the entire material available on record and on hearingboth the parties, allowed the said R.C by order dated 02.06.2009directing the petitioner/tenant to vacate the petition schedule mulgi andhandover the same to the landlady within two months from the date ofthat order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/tenant approachedthe Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagarand filed R.A.No.6 of 2009 along with the present I.A.No.1502 of 2009seeking stay of execution of the eviction order dated 02.06.2009stating that he never committed default in payment of the rents and thatthere is no bonafide requirement of the premises. The lower appellateCourt, on hearing both the parties, by the impugned order datedallowed the I.A granting stay of execution of the eviction order dated02.06.2009 subject to payment of arrears of rent of Rs.56,732/- by thepetitioner. Hence, this revision.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant contended that thelearned Rent Controller in his order dated 02.06.2009, which is underappeal in R.A.No.6 of 2009, neither framed any issue with regard toenhancement of rent nor held that the petitioner/tenant is due to payRs.56,732/-. In the absence of the same, passing the impugned order by the lower appellate Court directing the petitioner to pay hugeamount of Rs.56,732/- is illegal. He, however, submitted that ifultimately the appeal filed by him is dismissed and he is directed topay the amounts, he would pay the same within a period of two weeksfrom the date of passing such an order.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for therespondent/landlady submitted that the petitioner had alreadydeposited the entire amount as directed by the lower appellate Courtand that the respondent will not withdraw the said amount. Therefore,he requested to dispose of the revision with a direction to the lowerappellate Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
A perusal of the order dated 02.06.2009 passed by the learnedRent Controller in the above R.C., discloses that there is no finding inthe R.C that the petitioner has to pay the enhanced rent. Apart fromthat, it is brought to the notice of this Court that since the respondenthas refused to receive the rental arrears, the petitioner filed a separatecase in R.C.No.5 of 2001 and the same was allowed by the PrincipalJunior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Ranga Reddy permitting thepetitioner to deposit the arrears of rent, if any, accrued by him on orbefore 27.07.2008 and also future rent on or before 5[th] of every month. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioner is paying the rentsregularly.
Since the petitioner is said to be already deposited the rents inR.C.No.5 of 2001, and having regard to the stand taken by thepetitioner as noted supra, that if ultimately the rent appeal filed by himis dismissed, he would deposit the rents as may be directed by thelower appellate Court, within a period of four weeks from the date ofpassing such order, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of theCivil Revision Petition with the following directions:
The lower appellate Court is directed to return the amount ofRs.56,732/- deposited by the petitioner-tenant. The lower appellateCourt is also directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously,
preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of acopy of this order.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. Nocosts.
Date.31.12.2009va
N.V.RAMANA, J