(1.) The plaintiff-applicant is assailing order dated 7 August 2015, passed by the revisional court/ Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Special Court no.1, Meerut, in S.C.C. Revision No. 110 of 2010 (Raman Gupta and others Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Goel), arising from an order passed by the Small Causes Court at Meerut, in Suit No. 85 of 2007 imposing cost on the applicant upon withdrawal of the suit.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the petition, briefly is, that applicant instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent; respondent-defendant contested by filing written statement and deposited arrears of rent, interest and cost at 41,950/ rupees to enable the respondent to claim relief against the eviction in view of section 20(4) of Act 13 of 1972. During pendency of the suit, applicant preferred an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC withdrawing the entire suit, application was opposed by the respondent/tenant by filing objections, inter-alia, contending that respondent had incurred expenses and after withdrawal of arrears of rent deposited, the suit is being withdrawn, therefore, the application should be rejected.
(3.) The trial court allowed the application withdrawing the suit but imposed 15,000/ rupees towards cost of litigation, 35,000/ rupees towards mental agony and 41,950/ rupees towards refund of arrears of rent payable to the respondent. Aggrieved, applicant preferred a revision being Revision No. 110 of 2010, revisional court partly allowed the revision holding that there is no provision in law for grant of cost towards mental agony, arrears of rent withdrawn by the applicant cannot be directed to be refunded as it was deposited unconditionally to avoid eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. It was open to the landlord, in a suit for eviction and arrears of rent, to withdraw the suit upon arrears of rent being satisfied. The revisional court, however, upheld cost of 15,000/rupees towards expenses incurred by the respondent.