ADARSH CHUG Vs. JAYA DIXIT PARALATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals arise out of an order dated 14.12.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge. Delhi in Civil Suit No. III 5/93 on the petition filed by the plaintiff/landlord under Order 39 Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C.

(2.) The plaintiff/landlord filed a suit being suit No. III 5/93 against the tenant/defendant for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and the mesne profits. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff/landlord filed an application under Order 39 Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. for direction to the defendant/tenant to pay to the plaintiff/landlord arrears of rent with effect from 1.6.93 till disposal of the suit. The learned Trial Judge by his order dated 14.12.1994 allowed the petition and directed the defendant/tenant to pay the plaintiff/landlord arrears at the rate of Rs. 7,150.00 p.m from June. 1993 till November, 1994 within a period of 45 days. He also directed the plaintiff/landlord to adjust a sum of Rs. 1,10,000.00 in computing the arrears of rent. The defendant/tenant was further directed to continue depositing rent month by month by the 7th of each succeeding month. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff/landlord and the defendant/tenant have filed these appeals which can be disposed of by this common order.

(3.) In this appeal the tenant/appellant has challenged the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Judge in passing the impugned order. The short question which this appeal raises is whether the learned Trial Court can. in a case of this kind in exercise of its discretion order to pay arrears of rent to the plaintiff/landlord pending decision of a suit. At the outset. I must make it clear that in the instant case. rate of rent of Rs. 7,150/ - p.m. and the relationship of landlord and tenant arc not in dispute. Thus. there is not only an admission with regard to the agreed rate of rent but even with regard to the period for which it is due. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision in Bring. SS Puri (AVSM) (Retd.) Vs. R. Chandra Shekhar 1994 (1) Delhi Lawyer 1, in support of his contention that the learned trial court has Jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. In the case of Brig. S.S. Puri (supra) the plaintiff/landlord filed a suit against his tenant for possession of recovery of rent. During pendency of the suit. the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for direction to the tenant to deposit arrears of rent. The tenant contested the petition and took the plea about its maintainability. The petition was dismissed by the trial court. On revision to this court, one of the questions posed was whether an order of the kind sought by the plaintiff can be passed. In that case. it was found that there was not only an admission with regard to the rate of rent but even with regard to the period for which it was due. While reversing the order of the trial court, my learned brother Jaspal Singh, J. observed that;