Bombay High Court
Anand S/O Vasant Bhisey vs Samrendra S/O T. Bade (Since Dead) ... on 24 January, 2018
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp1706.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1706 OF 2016
Anand S/o. Vasant Bhisey,
Aged about 47 years, Occ.: Private
Service, R/o. Banhatti's House,
Tikekar Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur-12.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. Samrendra S/o. Tribakrao Bade
(Since Dead through Legal
Representatives)
i) Dr. Rajani Wd/o. Samrendra Barde,
Aged about 59 years, Occ.: Medical
Practitioner.
ii) Mona D/o. Samrendra Barde,
Aged about 21 years, Occ.: Student,
iii) Tanishka @ Pari D/o. Samrendra
Barde, Aged about 10 years, Occ. : Student,
(Minor through Natural guardian No.(i)
All R/o. "Mayuresh Apartments",
Flat No.601, Abhyankar Road,
Chandurkar Chowk, Nagpur-12,
Tq. And Distt. Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.J.Bhoot, Adv. H/f. Shri S.S.Alaspurkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri M.M.Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri A.M.Balpande, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JANUARY 24, 2018.
Judgment 2 wp1706.16.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. None appeared for the respondents in the morning session. The
matter was kept back. In the afternoon session, again there is no appearance
on behalf of the respondents when the matter is called out.
2. Heard Shri A.J. Bhoot, advocate for the petitioner.
3. RULE.
4. The petitioner has filed civil suit praying for decree for
ejectment, possession and recovery of money. In this civil suit, the plaintiff
had filed an application under Order 15A read with Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure praying that the defendants be directed to pay arrears of
rent/ damages and also the corporation taxes, during pendency of the civil
suit. This application was opposed by the defendants. By an order dated 4 th
February, 2015, the trial Court directed the defendants to pay Rs.2,000/- per
month towards arrears of rent for the period from April, 2014 till February,
2015. The trial Court directed the defendants to continue to pay Rs.2,000/-
per month from March, 2015, till the civil suit is decided and this amount
was required to be paid till 10th day of each month.
Judgment 3 wp1706.16.odt
The plaintiff had filed an application seeking review of the
above order. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were liable to pay
Rs.56,686/- towards the municipal taxes. This application is rejected by the
order dated 20th October, 2015.
Being aggrieved in the matter, the plaintiff has filed this writ
petition.
5. After examining the matter, I find that the claim made by the
plaintiff that the defendants are liable to pay the amount of municipal taxes
cannot be brushed aside, at this stage and the issue requires adjudication.
6. In my view, the following order would sub-serve the ends of
justice:
i) In addition to the amount as directed by the trial Court by order
dated 4th February, 2015, the defendants shall deposit the
amount of Rs.56,686/- before the trial Court within two months
towards the municipal taxes payable till 2013-2014.
ii) In addition, the defendants shall deposit the amount of
municipal taxes payable for the period from 2014-2015 till
2017-2018. This amount shall also be deposited before the trial
Court within two months. The defendants shall continue to
deposit the amount of the Municipal taxes in respect of the suit
Judgment 4 wp1706.16.odt
property every year till disposal of the civil suit. This amount
shall be deposited within two months on the date on which the
demand notice issued by the Municipal Corporation is placed on
record by the plaintiff.
The impugned orders are modified accordingly.
7. At the time of hearing, the advocate for the petitioner/ plaintiff
has argued that in addition to the above amount, the defendants are liable to
pay / deposit Rs.700/- per month towards maintenance charges. However, I
find that this claim was not made by the plaintiff in the application filed by
him under Order 15-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
and it was raised for the first time in the review application. It being so, the
claim could not have been considered by the trial Court at the time of
deciding the review application. The plaintiff is at liberty to move
appropriate application for seeking directions regarding the maintenance
charges.
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
8. The petitioner/ plaintiff shall send copy of this judgment to the
defendants by Speed Post Acknowledgment Due within fifteen days.
JUDGE
RRaut..
