Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2490 (ALL)

Jagdish Chandra Kashyap v. District Judge Jhansi

2014-08-13

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has come up in this writ petition against the interim order dated 18.7.2014 passed in SCC Revision No. 47 of 2014. 3. The petitioner is a tenant. A suit for arrears of rent and eviction was filed against him. The suit has been decreed vide judgment and order dated 1.4.2014. Against the said decision petitioner has preferred the above revision wherein interim protection has been granted to him and it has been provided that during pendency of the revision the eviction of the petitioner will remain stayed subject to his depositing rent/damages for the use and occupation of the premises @ of Rs. 4,000/- per month. 4. Petitioner is aggrieved by the condition imposed for depositing rent/damages @ Rs. 4,000/- per month during pendency of the revision as a condition for stay of his eviction. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no condition which is beyond the scope of the ultimate relief of the suit can not be imposed for the stay of his eviction. 6. It is now well settled that the appellate/revisional court or the writ court is empowered to enhance rent to a reasonable extent while granting interim relief against eviction of the tenant. 7. It is also well established that ordinarily damages should be awarded @ of rent but the courts are not precluded from awarding it at higher rate prevailing in the market provided evidence to this effect is adduced. 8. In view of the above legal position, there appears to be no illegality on part of the revisional court in imposing the condition of payment of rent/damages @ Rs. 4,000/- per month as a condition precedent for the stay of the eviction of the tenant during the pendency of the revision. 9. The reasonability for such enhancement in payment of rent/damages would depend upon the ultimate decision of the revision and the quantum fixed can be said to be arbitrary at the stage. 10. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. Abdul Aziz and 6 others 2014 (1) ARC 390. In the said case the lower court while granting interim stay of eviction has enhanced the rent to Rs. 4,000/- per month and had directed the tenant to deposit the same. 10. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. Abdul Aziz and 6 others 2014 (1) ARC 390. In the said case the lower court while granting interim stay of eviction has enhanced the rent to Rs. 4,000/- per month and had directed the tenant to deposit the same. This Court held that an interim order which is beyond the scope of final relief of the suit is not permissible. 11. The suit is for arrears of rent, damages and eviction. As stated earlier, there is no bar upon the court to award damages at a higher rate than the agreed rent on the basis of the market value. Therefore, it is not illegal to fix higher rate of rent/damages as an interim measure as a condition for stay of eviction. Its fixation can not be said to be beyond the relief permissible in the suit. The aforesaid decision therefore falls short of saying that the court is powerless in enhancing the rent while granting interim protection and as such is of no help to the petitioner. 12. The order impugned is only an interim arrangement which will subsists only till the decision of the suit. Therefore, it is not an order which may cause any irreparable injury to the petitioner so as to warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with the direction to the District Judge before whom the above revision is pending to proceed and decide the revision as expeditiously as possible by curtailing all unnecessary adjournments fixing short dates in quick succession with further direction not to allow the landlord to lift rent/damages for the use and occupation of the premises in dispute over and above the agreed rate of rent and to invest the balance amount in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank subject to decision of the revision.