Masoodulhasan vs Mohd. Zaheerulhaq And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3311 Tel

   THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

                C.R.P.No.1516 of 2021

ORDER

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is

present and stated that notice was ordered against the

1st respondent and the same was served on the 1st

respondent and he filed proof of service to that effect.

The 2nd respondent is not a necessary party.

The 1st respondent has not appeared in spite of

service of notice.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

stated that this Civil Revision Petition is filed against

the order dated 18.02.2020 in I.A.No.248 of 2020 in

A.S.No.25 of 2020, wherein the trial Court directed the

1st respondent to deposit suit costs and also deposit

the admitted rent every month commencing from

February, 2020 till disposal of the suit. With the said

condition, the lower appellate court granted stay of

execution of operation of judgment and decree in

O.S.No.641 of 2013, dated 16.12.2019.

The revision petitioner is a landlord of the suit

schedule property. He filed the suit O.S.No.641 of

2013 for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits in

respect of the suit schedule property. The said suit

was decreed with costs directing defendant No.1 to

vacate the suit schedule property within two months

from the date of decree and handover the vacant

possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff

and in default, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed as

per law. Further, the plaintiff is entitled to recover

arrears of rents as per the enhancement of 7% on the

rent from 01.02.2011, after deducting the payments

made by the 1st defendant before the Rent Control

Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that

he filed calculation Memo, in which it is stated that the

petitioner has to receive arrears of Rs.3,88,683/-, but

the lower appellate Court while disposing of I.A.No.248

of 2020 directed respondent No.1 to deposit the suit

costs and admitted rent every month without any

direction to deposit 50% of the arrears of rent.

Therefore, the order of the lower appellate court is

liable to be set aside.

He further stated that the 1st respondent is

continuing in possession of the suit schedule property

since 1991 with meagre rent.

As the 1st respondent's counsel is absent, in spite

of service of notice, considering the arguments of the

learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel it just and

reasonable to direct the 1st respondent to deposit half

of the arrears of rent within one month from the date

of this order along with suit costs and he is also

directed to deposit the admitted rent during pendency

of the appeal on or before 5th of every month.

With the above direction, the

Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order

dated 18.02.2020 in I.A.No.248 of 2020 in A.S.No.25 of

2020. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

___________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J Date: 04.07.2022 Prv

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

S.A.No.1144 of 2013

15.02.2022

Prv