Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9471 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bharat Srivastav Respondent :- Dhanesh Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Anup Swaroop Srivastava
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
On 11.1.2019, the following order was passed : -
"Under trial court's order dated 26.7.2017, a sum of Rs.68,000/- was payable as arrears of rent from July, 2016 to October, 2016 at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month. The suit was decreed in respect of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month with 6% interest per annum. This Court, while setting aside the exparte decree of the trial court, by order dated 24.10.2017 directed the trial court to decide the case within two months but imposed condition upon the petitioner to deposit the entire decreetal amount within a period of 15 days and also pay damages for the period of two months in advance. The intention of the Court was that damages at the rate of Rs.30,000/- as decreed by the court below for the period during which the suit proceedings would remain pending, should also be deposited. The petitioner only deposited Rs.1,28,600/- and that too beyond the time stipulated by this Court. The court below, therefore, treated the stay to be vacated and issued writ of possession by order dated 24.1.2018. It was subject matter of challenge in a petition under Article 227 bearing No.2406 of 2018, which was disposed off directing the executing court to specify the amount to be deposited by the petitioner. There was a further direction that the petitioner would deposit the said amount within two weeks. In pursuance of the said direction, the court below has now passed an order dated 28.11.2018 determining the liability of the petitioner as Rs.8,51,281/- out of which 1,28,600/- has been deposited so far, leaving a balance of Rs.7,22,681/-. The court below has calculated damages at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month upto October, 2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit damages at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month in compliance of the decree passed by the trial court from 1.11.2016 till December 2017 so as also to comply with the previous order of this Court dated 24.10.2017, but for the period thereafter, he may be permitted to deposit rent at the agreed rate i.e. Rs.17,000/- per month. He further states that the petitioner would deposit the entire balance amount at the aforesaid rate within a week.
He is permitted to deposit the balance amount as per the above statement made by his counsel and produce receipt relating to deposit on the next date.
Put up as fresh on 21.1.2019."
Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner has not deposited any amount whatsoever despite an assurance to the Court to deposit the entire remaining amount if some further time is granted. It would be evident from the order passed above that this Court had already permitted the petitioner to deposit rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 17,000/- per month, although the Court below had calculated the amount required to be deposited under the decree and order of this Court dated 24.10.2017 at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month.
It is also noteworthy that in previous petition No. 2406 of 2018, this Court granted only two weeks' time to the petitioner to deposit the amount, after the determination is made by the Court below, regarding the amount payable. Since then, considerably time has elapsed. Even then, this Court, as noted above, granted further indulgence by not only extending the time to deposit, but also by permitting deposit of Rs. 17,000/- per month for subsequent period.
In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant any further indulgence.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 21.1.2019 AM/-