G SRINIVASA RAO Vs. DEEPAK LAL IDNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st Respondent filed O.S.No. 428 of 2000 against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 inter alia for eviction and arrears of rent to a tune of Rs. 85,900.00, damages for use and occupation to a tune of Rs. 30,000.00 and for future profits and filed I.A.No. 608 of 2000 seeking attachment of the movable properties lying in the shop of the appellant, and later filed LA.No. 40 of 2001, under Order XXXIX Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking a direction to the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 to deposit Rs. 2,05,900.00. Appellant, on behalf of himself and respondents 2 and 3, filed a counter opposing the said petition. By the order under appeal, the trial Court directed the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 to pay rents from January, 2000 onwards till date of order on or before 10-08-2001 and also directed them to continue to pay the admitted rent of Rs. 8,590/- per month on or before 15th of every month, and ordered that if they fail to do so, orders of attachment would be passed in I.A.No. 608 of 2000, and that 1st respondent can execute the order as if it was a decree. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 1st respondent-1st defendant in the trial Court.

(2.) Relying on K. Bangarraju v. K. Hanumantha Rao Mr. G. Ramagopal, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the order under appeal is beyond the scope and power given to the Court under Order XXXIX Rule 10 C.P.C., as the said Rule does not empower the Court to direct arrears of rent to be deposited into the Court, and hence is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The contention of Mr. T.S. Anand, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, is that the appellant, who filed a petition seeking extension of time for deposit granted by the trial Court, cannot now question the order for deposit by way of appeal, and contended that Court has inherent power to order deposit of rents and so ordered deposit of admitted rent only and therefore appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order under appeal.