Bombay High Court
Jagdish S/O Kaluram Agrawal, ... vs Kantilal Lalji Patel (Huf) Thr Its ... on 15 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
1 wp.422.15.jud
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.422 OF 2015
Petitioner : Jagdish s/o Kaluram Agrawal,
Proprietor of J.K. Steel Corporation,
Aged about 63 years, Occu : Business,
R/o A/4, Krishnaganga Apartment, Temple Road,
ig Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001.
-- Versus --
Respondents : 1] Kantilal Lalji Patel (HUF),
Through its Karta Kantilal Lalji Patel,
Aged about 54 years, Occu : Business,
R/o Janki Bhavan, AVJ Layout,
Lakadganj, Nagpur.
2] M/s Janki Enterprises,
Through its Partner Kantilal Lalji Patel,
R/o Janki Bhavan, AVJ Layout,
Lakadganj, Nagpur.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri H.R. Gadhia, Advocate for the respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
C ORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 15
JUNE, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
01] Rule. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for
the parties.
2 wp.422.15.jud
02] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21/11/2014
passed by the trial Court on the application moved by the respondents
under the provisions of Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(for short, the Code).
03] The respondents are the original plaintiffs, who have filed a
suit for eviction under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,
1999. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is liable to pay
rent of Rs.9,000/- per month excluding municipal taxes. In the said suit,
the petitioner filed his written statement and took the stand that the agreed
rent is Rs.5,000/- per month. A counter claim was also filed claiming
therein that the petitioner had paid the municipal taxes on behalf of the
respondents and hence, he was entitled to recover the same.
04] During pendency of the suit, the respondents filed an
application under the provisions of Order XV-A of the Code and the trial
Court has allowed the same directing the petitioner to pay rent at the rate
of Rs.9,000/- per month from March, 2011 onwards.
05] Shri A.R. Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that from the exchange of notices between the parties, it was
clear that the rent which was agreed to be paid was Rs.5,500/- and not
3 wp.422.15.jud
Rs.9,000/-. He submitted that huge amount of municipal taxes had been
paid by the petitioner though it was the liability of the respondents to pay
the same. He submitted that without considering this aspect of the matter,
the trial Court has directed the petitioner to pay rent of Rs.9,000/- per
month.
06]
Shri H.R. Gadhia, the learned Counsel for the respondents
supported the impugned order. According to him, the petitioner was liable
to pay sum of Rs.9,000/- per month as rent and the same was excluding
the municipal taxes. He also referred to the notices in question and
submitted that the rent of Rs.5,500/- was payable only to the co-owner and
not to both the owners. Relying upon the judgment in Prabhakar
Venkobaji Manekar vs. Surendra Dinanath Sharma - 2015 (4) Mh.L.J.
351, it was submitted that the petitioner was duty bound to comply with
all the conditions of the tenancy while continuing in possession including
paying the rent in question. He, therefore, submitted that there was no
reason to interfere with the impugned order.
07] Perusal of the documents on record indicates that there is a
dispute between the parties with regard to the quantum of rent that is
payable. While it is the case of the respondents that the agreed rent is
4 wp.422.15.jud
Rs.9,000/- per month excluding the municipal taxes, it is the case of the
petitioner that the same is only Rs.5,500/- excluding the municipal taxes.
The exchange of notices also indicates a dispute in that regard. It is also to
be noted that the petitioner has filed a counter claim wherein adjustment
of the amount of municipal taxes paid by him is sought. At this stage,
therefore, it would not be proper to record any finding with regard to the
exact amount of rent payable inasmuch as the evidence is to be led before
the trial Court. It is to be noted that on 03/02/2015 while issuing notice to
the respondents, an interim order was passed directing the petitioner to
pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.5,500/-. In the aforesaid facts, when
there is a dispute with regard to the quantum of rent which is yet to be
adjudicated, the interests of justice can be served by passing the following
order:
i. The petitioner is directed to deposit rent at the rate of
Rs.5,500/- per month from March, 2011 to February, 2014
and thereafter to continue to deposit the same without
prejudice to the rights of the parties. This arrangement is only
by way of an interim measure and is subject to the final
outcome of the proceedings before the trial Court. The
respondents would be entitled to withdraw the aforesaid
5 wp.422.15.jud
amounts.
ii. The proceedings in R.C.S. No.58/2014 are expedited and the
trial Court shall decide the same by the end of December,
2016. It is made clear that in case it is found by the trial
Court that the amount of rent payable is either more or less
than Rs.5,500/- per month, the same shall be adjusted while
passing the final order.
iii. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE
*sdw
