Anil Tyagi vs Harendra Kaur @ Harinder Kaur And ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 2188 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 40 of 2019
 

 
Revisionist :- Anil Tyagi
 
Opposite Party :- Harendra Kaur @ Harinder Kaur And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Madhava Nand Shukla,Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ankur Singh Kushwaha
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

On oral prayer made by counsel for the revisionist, he is permitted to carry out correction in the prayer clause during course of the day.

The instant revision is directed against order dated 13.3.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar in SCC Suit No. 9 of 2018. By the said order, the court below has disposed of application 17-Ga filed by the plaintiff-respondents under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC for striking off defence of the defendant-revisionist and objection No.19-Ga filed by the defendant-revisionist against the said application. In the objection the defendant-revisionist specifically stated that rent of the tenanted premises is Rs.1000/- and not Rs. 5000/- per month as alleged by the plaintiff.

The court below in the impugned order has held that the issue relating to rate of rent is a matter of evidence and would be decided after evidence is led by the parties. Thereafter, it proceeded to observe that the disputed premises comprises of four rooms and other amenities and the present rent of the premises would not be less than Rs.5000/- per month and accordingly directed the revisionist-tenant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month since July 2014, within twenty days.

Counsel for the revisionist submitted that in order to ensure compliance of Order 15, Rule 5 CPC, the revisionist was required to deposit rent at the admitted rate which he had been regularly depositing. He submitted that the direction passed by the court below to deposit rent at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month is based on pure conjectures in as much as the issue as to the rate of rent is yet to be decided.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party is not able to dispute the legal position that in order to ensure compliance of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, the revisionist has to deposit rent at the admitted rate and not at the rate demanded by the plaintiff until the rate of rent is decided in the suit. He therefore, very fairly agreed for the impugned order being set aside.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.3.2019 is set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

The revision is allowed.

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

Order Date :- 1.4.2019

skv