The Delhi High Court opined that Order 39 Rule 10 along with Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) is an interim measure that safeguards the interest of the owner. The order as an interim measure has to be passed carefully and has to be given a broad interpretation so that the party claiming ownership is safeguarded.
In the present case, it was noted that solely because the trial is about to get concluded, the Plaintiff cannot be deprived of the fair protection of his interest. It was held that given the broad scope of Order XV-A of CPC, the Trial Court should not have restricted the decision to direct payment only to the ‘admitted’ amount of rent.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant had preferred a suit for possession. It was alleged that the Respondent was a tenant on the ground floor, 1st floor and half of the second floor. Initially, separate tenancies were created, however. Later a consolidated rent was paid by the Respondent. The amalgamation of separate tenancies and payment of consolidated rent has been alleged by the Appellant.
The present appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was submitted that the Appellant terminated the tenancy and the last rent received was in 2014. Further, in the application filed, Rs 12 lacs per month for use and occupation charges were sought, during the trial, only Rs. 8 lacs were demanded.
It was asserted that the amount of rent/occupation is adjudged as per the registered lease deeds.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was submitted that the Appellant’s application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC was dismissed. Further, the order of the Trial Court attained finality and enhancement of the amount already granted would amount to granting final relief.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that the dispute was regarding the number of tenancies, whether there was a single tenancy or 3-4 separate tenancies.
The Trial Court passed an order stating that the deposit of rent based on market value as alleged by the Appellant may not be correct unless the issue is decided in the trial.
The High Court noted that Order 39 Rule 10 along with Order XV-A gives the Court discretion to issue a direction for the deposit of the amount as the Court deems fit.
Further, it was opined that Order 39 Rule 10 along with Order XV-A is an interim measure that safeguards the interest of the owner. The order as an interim measure has to be passed carefully and has to be given a broad interpretation so that the party claiming ownership is safeguarded.
In the present case, it was noted that solely because the trial is about to get concluded, the Plaintiff cannot be deprived of the fair protection of his interest. It was held that given the broad scope of Order XV-A of CPC, the Trial Court should not have restricted the decision to direct payment only to the ‘admitted’ amount of rent.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned findings, the High Court allowed the appeal and directed the Respondent to deposit Rs. 2 lacs per month till the pendency of the suit.
Case Title: Smt. Swaran Makkar v. M/s Dayal Chand KIshori Lal
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Case No.: FAO 7/2023
Advocates for Appellant: Advs. Mr. K.K. Bhuchar, Mr. Atul Bhuchar
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
