K D SINGH Vs. RUZANNA KESHISHYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been directed against the order dated 11.1.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 457/2009 directing the I.I.C., Chandrasekharpur Police Station to implement its order dated 13.10.2009 passed in I.A. No. 407/2009.

(2.) THE fact giving rise to filing of the writ petition in short is that opp.parties Nos.1 and 2, who are husband and wife, took a house on rent from the Petitioners in the first week of June, 2007. According to the opp.parties, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.2500/ - per month with an understanding that it would be enhanced @ 10% per annum, while the Petitioners, who are father and son claim that the initial rent was fixed at Rs.5000/ - which was enhanced to Rs.6000/ - with effect from June, 2008. In the year 2009, it was fixed at Rs.6, 500/ -per month. Besides the rent, opp.party No. 2 agreed to pay the water and electricity charges as per his consumption. As there was some dispute between the parties, opp.party No. 2 filed C.S. No. 303/2009 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar for permanent injunction in respect of the tenanted premises. He also filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for grant of interim injunction, which was registered as I.A. No. 407/2009, whereas Petitioners filed I.A. No. 490 of 2009 with prayer to direct opp.party No. 2 to pay the arrear as well as current rent and water charges as per his consumption.'

(3.) OPP .parties filed a petition under Section 151 of CPC seeking for a direction to the local police to render assistance for implementation of the order of injunction dated 13.10.2009 passed in I.A. No. 407/ 2009 which was registered as I.A. No. 456/2009. According to the opp.parties, they left the tenanted premises on 14.10.2009 on a vacation trip and on return in the night of 6.12.2009 were shocked to see that all their belongings had been missing. In this context, the plea of the Petitioners is that opp.parties left the suit premises of their own without paying the arrear rent as directed in I.A. No. 407/2009. Opp.party No. 1 left the Indian Territory and never came with opp.party No. 2 to the suit house. So, the house in question was let out to a new tenant through an agreement dated 20.11.2009 and that since then the opp.parties are no more in occupation of the same.