Delhi High Court
Pramod Kumar Rastogi vs Mangal Sain Kumra on 26 November, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 26.11.2018
+ C.R.P. No.148/2018 & C.M. Nos.29491/2018, 48835/2018
PRAMOD KUMAR RASTOGI ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Versus
MANGAL SAIN KUMRA ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha & Mr.Anand
Darshan, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. The impugned order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the court of
learned Additional District Judge-04, Patiala House Courts, New
Delhi ('ADJ') in Civil Suit No.59100/2016 is the subject-matter of
challenge in the present civil revision petition.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner is a tenant in the premises in question
since 26.06.2011. The premises in question was taken by him on rent
initially @ Rs.18,000/- per month from the respondent. Subsequently,
a fresh agreement was executed between the parties and the last
agreed rate of rent was Rs.19,000/- per month. The
respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for possession, recovery of rent
and mesne profits. Admission of tenancy and lease deed by the
petitioner led the respondent/plaintiff to file an application under
Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) before the Ld.
'ADJ' to pass judgment and decree. Arguments have already been
heard on this application by the Ld. 'ADJ' on 21.05.2018 and case
was fixed for orders on 30.07.2018.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has drawn the
attention of the court to the order dated 25.01.2018 of Ld. 'ADJ' by
which the petitioner was directed to make the payment of the rent to
the respondent/plaintiff for the month of April and May, 2016 on the
next date. This order was assailed by the petitioner by preferring a
Civil Revision Petition No.40/2018 which was dismissed as
withdrawn on 13.03.2018. The order passed by the trial court dated
25.01.2018 has, thus, attained finality. Subsequently, the learned
'ADJ' by order dated 19.03.2018 again observed that the petitioner
has failed to make the payment of rent for the month of April and
May, 2016 in terms of the orders dated 25.01.2018, 05.03.2018 and
16.03.2018.
4. It is a case where the petitioner is enjoying the property without
payment of even the admitted rent from April, 2016 despite the order
of the Court of learned 'ADJ' dated 25.01.2018. The petitioner
contends that his application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is
pending disposal before the learned 'ADJ' who has not decided the
same. Since the arguments have already been heard by the learned
'ADJ' on the application of the respondent/plaintiff under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC, and order is reserved, I do not find any merit in the
petition to direct the Trial Court to first hear the application of the
petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and not to decide
application of the respondent/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
5. The petition is accordingly dismissed along with CM APPL.
29491/2018, with direction to the trial court to decide the application
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the next date in accordance with law.
6. In view of the above, the application being CM APPL.
48835/2018 seeking vacation of stay is disposed of as infructuous.
(VINOD GOEL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 26, 2018
'AA'
