Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7964 of 2001
PETITIONER:
Imamuddin & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
Mond. Ismail & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/2008
BENCH:
A.K.MATHUR & AFTAB ALAM
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated
25.04.2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at
Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in Respondents’ Civil Revision Petition No. 521/2001 whereby
the learned Single Judge has reversed the order dated 17.3.2001 of the Addl. District
Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which order the learned Addl. District Judge has
dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents herein against the order of Trial Court
which had determined interim rent as per provisions of Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan
Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter for short the "Act").
We need not go into the chequered history of the matter. Suffice it to say that the
appellants herein have purchased the suit properties being two shops by two separate
registered sale deeds and the same were duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur on
16.5.1994.
Thereafter, the appellants demanded rent from the respondents and on their
refusal to pay rent, they filed a suit for eviction of the respondents herein. In the said
suit,
the Trial Court determined the interim rent payable by the respondents, which was
affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Against the said fixation of interim rent by the
Trial Court, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court, the respondents herein
moved a Revision Petition before the High Court. Since, the revision petition was not
maintainable before the High Court, the appellants have moved this Court by the present
appeal.
A suit for specific performance was filed by the respondents herein on the ground
that they had entered into an agreement to sale and therefore they are not likely to be
evicted from the suit shops. The said suit was contested by the parties hereto and the same
has been dismissed by the Trial Court and a decree of specific performance has not been
granted. However, the Trial Court directed the respondents herein to refund the amount
of Rs.1,29,000/- with interest. Against that order the appellants, as also the respondents,
herein filed two separate appeals before the High Court. The said appeals are pending.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in terms of proviso to Section
115 of the Code Of Civil Procedure, the High Court ought not to have entertained the
revision petition filed by the respondents as the order of fixation of rent was purely an
interlocutory order. Be that as it may, we need not go into this question at this stage as
in
order to put the present controversy to an end, we thing it just and proper that the
respondents shall continue to deposit in Court the rent month by month and it will be
open for the appellants to withdraw the same amount on furnishing bank guarantee till
the amount of rent reaches Rs.1,29,000/-. In case the appeals are not disposed of by the
High Court and the deposit of rent exceeds the amount of Rs.1,29,000/- the respondents
will continue to deposit the rent but then it will be open for the appellants to withdraw th
e
amount without furnishing any bank guarantee.
We make it clear that the abovesaid arrangement has been made by us in order to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
decide the equities between the parties, as in the present case, the parties are seriously
contesting the appeals against the order of refusal to grant a decree of specific
performance and the refund of Rs.1,29,000/-to the appellants herein. We have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter but mentioned the facts only to decide
the controversy at hand.
The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.