MOHAMMAD YOUNUS Vs. BARAD LINGUSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No. 6 of 2000 is the revision petitioner. He is the tenant of the plaintiff in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent as well as for eviction of the tenant. Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is said to have been issued to the defendant before filing the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed a petition under Section 151 C.P.C., seeking a direction to the defendant to deposit monthly rent of Rs. 2025-00 from February, 2000, onwards till the disposal of the suit. It is the case of the defendant that the monthly rent is Rs.1325-00 only. In the interim application, it is not desirable to decide the quantum of rent agreed to between the parties concerned. As the quantum is disputed, it will fall for consideration at the time of final disposal of the suit. The learned District Munsif allowed I.A.No. 17 of 2000 by his order dated 7-6-2001. He directed the defendant to deposit Rs. 2025-00 per month from February, 2000, onwards till further orders in Court. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is filed.

(2.) At the time of hearing of this revision petition, this Court enquired the learned Advocate for the respondent-plaintiff to show any provision of law under which the Civil Court can direct the defendant in a money suit to deposit in Court the future rents. The learned advocate invited the attention of the Court to Order 15-A at page 145 of Code of Civil Procedure, published by Eastern Book Company, Lucknow (1989 Edition). Reading of the s.aid amendment shows that it is a provision added by Bombay High Court. The said provision cannot be enforced in the State of Andhra Pradesh. No corresponding provision by way of any amendment applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh is brought to my notice. Therefore, the petition filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable. Further, the said interim application was not filed under the so called Order 15-A C.P.C. It was merely filed under Section 151 C.P.C., only. Inherent powers of the Court cannot be used to pass such an order by a Civil Court. Further, such an order results in financial loss to the State exchequer. A litigant will be realising the amounts to him without payment of Court fee and even without instituting a regular civil suit for recovery of rents due to him. I accordingly hold that a civil Court during the pendency of a civil suit for recovery of arrears of rent has no inherent power to direct the defendant-tenant to deposit future rents in Court till the disposal of the suit. The order passed by the trial Court is illegal and unsustainable in law. The learned District Munsif had no jurisdiction whatsoever to pass such an order. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) In the result, the Civil Revision Petitionis allowed. The Order of the Junior Civil Judge at Armoor in I.A.No. 17 of 2000 in O.S.No. 6 of 2000 is set aside. The said petition is dismissed. No costs.