NISSAR AHMAD Vs. ABDUL RASHID WANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged order dated 29.12.2020 passed by District Judge, Srinagar, whereby he has been directed to deposit the rent in respect of the suit property with effect from 01.02.2018 till final disposal of the suit. A further direction has been made vide the impugned order to the petitioner to deposit the arrears till 31.12.2020 by or before 31.01.2021 and thereafter to deposit the rent on monthly basis on 5th day of every month. The rent has been made payable as per the rent agreement forming part of the plaint with 5% increase per annum in terms of order dated 18.08.2020 passed by the said Court.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is tenant in respect of a shop belonging to the respondents for last more than 15 years and that the outstanding rent up to the month of May, 2019, stands paid to the respondents. According to the petitioner, instead of executing a fresh rent deed, the respondents have filed a suit for possession and recovery of rent before the Court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar, and in opposition to the same, the petitioner has filed his written statement wherein, inter alia, he has admitted that from the month of July/August, 2018, he has to pay rent @75% of basic rent and that he is ready to pay the same.

(3.) The grouse of the petitioner is that in some other identical suits, certain orders with regard to payment of rent came to be passed by the learned trial court and the same were challenged before this Court by filing petitions under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. The said petitions came to be decided by this Court in terms of order dated 27.11.2020 passed in CM(M) No. 62/2020 and other connected petitions whereby, while dismissing the petitions, the Court gave liberty to the parties to approach the trial court for clarification with regard to the period for which rent has been ordered to be paid. It is contended that the petitioner had not filed any writ petition nor was he a party to the proceedings in any of the petitions that were decided by this Court vide its aforesaid order. Therefore, there was no occasion for the trial court to pass the impugned order by stating that some application seeking clarification of order dated 18.08.2020 had been filed by the petitioner herein.