C.R. No.6461 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6461 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.05.2009 Lalit Kumar .......Petitioner Versus Renu Khera ....Respondent Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Interim order passed by the Appellate Authority against an order of eviction putting the tenant on terms with direction to deposit the rent as well as to furnish security to the tune of Rs.2 lacs is assailed in revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the status of the party as a tenant has been denied and the direction to pay rent was clearly untenable. According to him, he is himself an owner of the premises as a person to whom, the property was allotted in a settlement after partnership was dissolved on the death of his father, who was admittedly a partner with his brother Shivan Ditta. The person claiming as a landlord was the daughter-in-law of Shivan Ditta. C.R. No.6461 of 2008 (O&M) -2- 3. The power to impose conditions by the Appellate Court is essentially a matter within the discretion of that Court and the only aspect that will fall for consideration in revision is whether the discretion has been properly exercised or whether it has transgressed the limits of discretion. In a case where after due consideration of all facts, the Court has taken a view that the tenancy had been established, putting such a party to reasonable terms will be perfectly justified but it has to be so done that it does not really make the decree operative in its full sense for that would make the appeal itself meaningless. The direction to deposit the rent at Rs.1500/-, which is complained by the tenant is, under the circumstances, not justified but at the same time, having regard to the fact of success that the landlord has obtained, in the fitness of things, the person who has been found to be a tenant, although the status as such has denied, shall be entitled to 50% of what he has claimed namely @ Rs.750/- from the date of purchase on 29.06.1998 till date and shall continue to receive at the same rate from the revision petitioner till the disposal of appeal. If the appellant succeeds, the amount paid shall be refunded by the person claiming to be the landlord. Needless to state that if the contention of the landlord is upheld, the person, who is said to be a tenant, shall become liable for the payment of the balance as well. 4. Having regard to the fact that in any event, the property status of the respective parties itself is not in serious dispute, no serious hardship would be caused by allowing the person claiming to be the landlord to receive the amounts even without furnishing any security. The direction for payment of 50% of the amount is purely C.R. No.6461 of 2008 (O&M) -3- provisional and shall have no bearing to the respective merits of the contentions between the parties. 5. The amounts as due till date shall be paid on or before 15.07.2009 and the future payments shall become payable within first five days of every succeeding calendar month following the rental month. 6. The civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 18, 2009 Pankaj*