SHYAM LILADHAR PAUL Vs. GHANSHYAMDAS THARUMAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision the defendant has challenged the order of the learned Trial Court dated 26 -6 -1984, by which it directed that the occupation charges from 1 -3 -1980 to 30 -6 -1984 amounting to Rs. 4,980/ - at the rate of Rs. 95/ - per month should be deposited by the defendant by the monthly installment of Rs. 1000/ - plus the future monthly occupation charges from the month of July, 1984 - It also directed that he should deposit the first installment of Rs. 1000/ - plus Rs. 95/ - for the month of July, 1984 on or before 16 -7 -1984 and thereafter he should deposit the amount every month on or before the 16th day of each month according to the British Calendar month and after the past dues are satisfied by the defendant, the defendant should continue to deposit the occupation charges at the rate of monthly rent every month till the decision of the suit. The above order was passed by the Court upon the application by the plaintiff dated 24 -1 -1984 for direction to deposit the rent made under Order 39 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short the C.P.C.). The application was opposed by the defendant on the ground that since the tenancy was itself void, the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and had, therefore, no jurisdiction to direct the defendant to deposit the past rent or dues. According to the defendant, the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 10 read with Section 151 for direction to deposit the rent was not, therefore, maintainable.

(2.) THE principal contention raised on behalf of the applicant in the instant revision is that the rule making power of the High Court is contained under Section 122 read with Section 128 of the C.P.C. It is by virtue of the power conferred under Section 122 of the C.P.C. that the High Court has enacted the rules under the newly introduced Order 15 -A in the C.P. C. It may be stated at this stage that by the notification of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay No. 0182/1977 order 15 -A and other amendments to the C. P. C. were brought into force with effect from 1st day of October, 1983. The said rules were framed after the approval of the Government of Maharashtra. At this stage, it may be noticed that the impugned order is passed by the learned Trial Court under Order 15 -A Rule 1, although the application is made under Order 39 Rule -10, under which as held by this Court, the Court has power to direct the tenant to deposit the rent. Vide Chandrakant Shankarrao Deshmukh v. Haribhai Tukaramji Kathane and others 1983 Mh. L. J. 88. However, since there is a specific provision made by amendment by the High Court in this regard, the Court passed the order under Order 15 -A Rule I.

(3.) IN my view, the rule impugned in this revision, namely Order 15A Rule -1 is purely a procedural rule. To pass interlocutory orders in the interest of the parties to the lis is a procedural matter, which has been recognised even by the original rule framed under the C. P. C. Order 39 itself deals with temporary injunctions as well as interlocutory orders. In appeals also the Appellate Court can always put the parties to conditions while passing orders of stay. The purpose of rule is very clear. It had been the experience that in a suit between the landlord and the tenant after the tenancy was determined by the landlord, no payment was made by the tenant at the agreed rate and it was only when the decree for mesne profits was passed that the landlord could get the compensation or money for use and occupation by the tenant of his premises after the decision in the suit and after the enquiry into the mesne profits was completed. It is in order to mitigate the agony of the landlord in not receiving the payment for use and occupation by the tenant at least at the agreed rate of rent for a long period till the decision of the suit, that the power to pass an interlocutory order in the nature of Order 15 -A Rule 1 was conferred upon the Court, so that till the tenant is using the premises of the landlord, he should continue to pay him the rent at the agreed rate. Otherwise due to the procedural delays caused in the final adjudication of the suit, the interest of the landlord was adversely affected. The power to direct the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent and to direct him to continue to make the payment to the landlord at the agreed rate is, therefore, a procedural power conferred upon the Court to do justice looking to the nature of the lis.