DINESH CHAND CHATURVEDI Vs. K.K. JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dt. 8.10.2012 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, North Kota, whereby the learned Magistrate had granted the temporary injunction application in favour of the respondent -plaintiff. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dt. 21.12.2013 passed by the same Court, whereby the learned Magistrate has directed the respondent to deposit the keys of the godown, and has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. one lac with the Court so that the repair work can be carried out. The learned Magistrate has also directed that the Commissioner, appointed by the Court to oversee the maintenance of the building, shall be paid Rs. 5,000/ -. The amount to be so paid shall be borne half and half by both the parties. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent -plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the maintenance of the godown which he had taken from the petitioner. The petitioner had filed his written statement and denied the contents of the plaint. He had further claimed that the godown is being damaged by the plaintiff himself, and by his servants. After hearing both the parties, by order dt. 8.10.2013 the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to get the premises repaired within a period of two months. Therefore, the petitioner had filed an application to get the keys from the respondent -plaintiff. He had also pointed out to the Court in the application that he is eager to get the premises repaired, but the keys were not handed over to him by the respondent -plaintiff. By order dt. 16.11.2013 the learned Magistrate had directed the respondent -plaintiff to hand over the keys to the petitioner on 18.11.2013. However, subsequently without handing over the keys to the petitioner, the respondent -plaintiff moved another application for depositing the keys in the Court. After hearing both the parties, by order dt. 21.12.2013 the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner as aforementioned. Hence this petition before this Court.

(2.) MR . Jai Kishan Yogi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a self -contradictory stand. On the one hand, he claims that the petitioner being the owner of the building is eager to get the building repaired. Yet on the other hand, he claims that according to the lease deed it is the duty of the respondent -plaintiff to maintain the building. Secondly, the learned counsel claims that he is aggrieved by the fact that the Court has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. one lac with the Court within a period of seven days. Furthermore, he is aggrieved by the fact that he has been asked to pay half the fees of the Commissioner.

(3.) THE petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold simultaneously. Both before the learned Magistrate as well as before this Court, if as the landlord, he is eager to maintain the building, he should have no objection to the fact that he has been asked to deposit Rs. one lac in the Court. After all, the learned Magistrate has directed him to deposit the said amount in order to ensure that the maintenance work is carried out under the supervision of Commissioner, and those who are carrying out the work are duly paid. Since the amount is being kept safely by the Court obviously in case a less amount is utilised for the purpose of repair, the remaining amount would be paid back to the petitioner.