JASWANT KAUR Vs. GURBAX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision by petitioner/landlord, is directed against order dated October 30,2006, Annexure P-1, passed by learned First Appellate Authority,Ludhiana, which reads as under:-

(2.) The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned first Appellate Authority in the impugned order has not directed the tenant/respondent during the pendency of the appeal, to pay the rent at the market rate of rent. In support of his this contention, learned counsel has relied upon the case laws Anderson Wright & Co v. Amar Nath Roy and Others (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 489, and Surinder Singh v. Dr. Davinder Mohan 2007 (1) Civil Court Cases 009 (P&H).

(3.) I have gone through the observations made by their Lordships in the above cited rulings and find that at the stage, when the aforesaid impugned order was passed, no material was available with learned first Appellate Authority to assess the market rate of rent of the demised premises. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the learned first Appellate Authority has rightly ordered the depositing of arrears of rent and further rent till the decision of the appeal, at the rate which was admittedly being paid to the petitioner/landlord by the tenant/respondent, who has filed the appeal against his eviction before the learned first Appellate Authority.