HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1168 OF 2022
Date:14.10.2022
Between:
Venkata Narayana Vagvala S/o.Hari Madhava Rao,
Aged about 49 yrs, Occu : Employee & another
.....Petitioners
And
Dasari Anjana Devi W/o.late P.Sudheer Kumar,
Aged about 67 yrs, Occu : Housewife & another
.....Respondents
The Court made the following:
-2-
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1168 OF 2022
ORDER :
Heard Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sunil B. Ganu, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioners herein are the owners of the suit schedule property. Petitioners instituted O.S.No.830 of 2017 in the Court of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 26 r/w. Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.3,84,000/-. By order dated 10.11.2021, the suit was decreed directing the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property and handover physical possession of the property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of judgment. The suit was also decreed for Rs.3,49,000/- towards arrears of rent from December 2016 to July 2017. Aggrieved thereby the tenants/defendants filed A.S.No.5 of 2022 in the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. In the said appeal I.A.No.41 of 2022 is filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC to stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2021. The Court below by order dated 10.3.2022 partly allowed the said I.A. The Court has granted a conditional stay subject to depositing of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) towards arrears of rent out of Rs.3,49,000/- with a -3- direction to deposit the said amount before the concerned Court on or before 11.04.2022.
3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners are entitled to higher amount. Therefore, the Court could not have restricted to Rs.2,00,000/- only. At any rate the order is silent on payment of monthly rent.
4. I do not see any error in the order of the Court below restricting depositing of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the discretion exercised by the Court below having regard to the facts of the case. However the order is silent on deposit of admissible rent per month. Therefore, it is clarified that the respondents herein shall continue to deposit Rs.48,000/- per month before 10th of every succeeding month.
5. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 14th October, 2022 Rds