D ANIL KUMAR Vs. SHIV BALAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. This revision raises an interesting question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to quantification of costs as per the common order of the lower appellate Court while dismissing R.A. Nos. 94 of 2003,11 of 2005 and 87 of 2003 with costs. The revisions preferred against the said common order, being C.R.P. Nos. 6996, 7000 and 7001 of 2005, were dismissed by this Court on 30.12.2005 wherein the order of eviction was confirmed by a common order passed by this Court in the said revisions. Petitioner/landlord, thereafter, filed separate applications, being I.A.(SR). Nos. 6776, 6777 and 6778 of 2006, in each of the rent appeals seeking quantification of the costs by the lower appellate Court may be awarded. The said applications containing detailed memo of costs in each of the appeals were not entertained by the registry and the IA(SR)'s were placed before the lower appellate Court for appropriate orders. A notice was given to the respondent/tenant, who filed a counter pointing out that against the orders passed by the lower appellate Court in the rent appeals, revisions were preferred and further common order was passed by this Court on 30.12.2005 while disposing of the aforesaid revision petitions. It was pointed out that this Court specifically directed that there would be no order as to costs. Thus, the claim of the petitioner/landlord that he is entitled to costs, as per the common order in the rent appeals, was seriously contested on the ground of principle of merger.

(2.) The lower appellate Court heard the IA's at the SR stage and on agreeing with the applicability of principle of merger rejected all the applications by the impugned common order dated 07.03.2007. This revision is preferred to the extent of one of the applications i.e. I.A.(SR). No. 6776 of 2006 in RA. No. 94 of 2003.

(3.) Mr. P. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the order of the lower appellate Court awarding costs was confirmed by this Court while disposing of the revision petitions, referred to above and thereby, the costs awarded by the lower appellate Court has to be taken as having been confirmed by this Court and justifies that the petitioner/landlord is entitled to costs as it was already awarded by the lower appellate Court. Learned counsel also submits that the order of this Court awarding 'no costs' is only applicable so far as the revision petitions are concerned and as such, the costs awarded by the lower appellate Court while passing order in the rent appeals is justified.