SUDHIR KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. LALA NAUBAT RAM AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Shrimati Seema Agarwal, learned Counsel who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of landlord respondent.

(2.) ALL the facts necessary to decide the point involved are contained in the writ petition and its annexures, hence there is no need for counter -affidavit. Learned Counsel for landlord respondent also agrees to the suggestion of the Court for final disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage without any counter -affidavit.

(3.) ON 5 -10 -2005 tenant petitioner was directed to deposit the entire rent due till 31 10 2005 alongwith Rs. 5,000/ - extra by 17 -10 -2005. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the tenant petitioner stating therein that on 10 -10 -2005 he has deposited Rs. 28,000/ -. In the order of the trial Court it is mentioned that rent had not been deposited since 1 -1 -2004. From 1 - 1 -2004 till 31 -10 -2005 period comes to 22 months. In the plaint landlord has claimed the rent @ Rs. 1,000/ - p.m. However, in the written statement tenant has pleaded that the rate of rent is only Rs. 500/ - per month. Aforesaid amount of Rs. 28.000/ - covers Rs. 22,000/ - as rent for 22 months from 1 -1 -2004 till 31 -10 -2005 @ Rs. 1,000/ - p.m. (as asked for by the landlord) alongwith Rs. 5,000/ -extra directed to be deposited through order dated 5 - 10 -2005 and an additional, amount of Rs. 1000/ - by way of abundant precaution. Learned Counsel for the landlord -respondent states that some more amount was not deposited by the tenant which according to her covered a period of about 12 or 13 months. Even if this allegation is correct it will not make much difference because under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. tenant is required to deposit admitted rent while in the instant case tenant has deposited at the rate which is claimed by the landlord.