VIJAYENDER JAIN Vs. M LALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 7.8.2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in IA No.1502 of 2009 in RA No.6 of 2009.

(2.) It is stated that the respondent / landlady filed RC No.9 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum- Rent Controller, Ranga Reddy District at L,B. Nagar seeking eviction of the petitioner / tenant from the petition schedule premises on the ground of willful default in payment of rent from December, 1999 to March, 2000 and bona fide requirement. The learned Rent Controller, on considering the entire material available on record and on hearing both the parties, allowed the said RC by order dated 2.6.2009 directing the petitioner/tenant to vacate the petition schedule mulgi and handover the same to the landlady within two months from the date of that order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/tenant approached the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.N agar and filed RA No.6 of 2009 along with the present 1A No.1502 of 2009 seeking stay of execution of the eviction order dated 2.6.2009 stating that he never committed default in payment of the rents and that there is no bona fide requirement of the premises. The lower appellate Court, on hearing both the parties, by the impugned order dated allowed the IA granting stay of executing of the eviction order dated 2.6.2009 subject to payment of arrears of rent of Rs.56,732/- by the petitioner. Hence, this revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner/tenant contended that the learned Rent Controller in his order dated 2.6.2009, which is under appeal in RA No.6 of 2009, neither framed any issue with regard to enhancement of rent nor held that the petitioner/tenant is due to pay Rs.56,732/-. In the absence of the same, passing the impugned order by the lower appellate Court directing the petitioner to pay huge amount of Rs.56,732'- is illegal. He, however, submitted that if ultimately the appeal filed by him is dismissed and he is directed to pay the amounts, he would pay the same within a period of two weeks from the date of passing such an order.