:1: :1: :1: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1313 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1314 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1325 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1342 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s Orders Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.P.S.Gidwani, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Praksh Shah, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 5TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The petitioners have filed this Writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial as well the Appellate Court. The Trial Court had passed an order on an Interim notice in the subject suits and the direction :2: :2: :2: is to the present petitioners who are Original Defendants in the suit, to deposit the Rent per month from November, 1993 within one month from the date of the order and to pay regularly the monthly rent on/or before the (10th) Tenth day of each succeeding month. 2. The contention of Mr.Gidwani appearing for the Original Defendants, is that the suit itself is not maintainable. The Demand Notice itself does not survive as the claim therein for rent and arrears has been duly satisfied. There is thus no cause of action for the suit and it is liable to be dismissed. 3. The courts below have rightly held that merely because such is the nature of defence, it does not mean that the request of the Landlord is out of the purview of Order XV A of CPC as applicable in the State of Maharashtra. 4. Further, a dispute being raised with :3: :3: :3: regard to the relationship of Landlord and Tenant, is also no reason not to secure the monthly rent. 5. While not disputing that the court has ample powers to issue such direction, the submission of Mr.Gidwani is that the same could not have been issued in the facts of this case. 6. After perusing the petition and the Annexures, so also, the impugned orders, I see no reason to interfere with the direction to deposit the monthly rent during the pendency of the suit and also to clear the arrears. Ultimately, the suit claim will be adjudicated on merits. It is not as if the petitioners suffer great prejudice, inasmuch as, if the suit is dismissed the amounts will be necessarily appropriated and adjusted. If the suit is decreed, then, while challenging that decree all appropriate pleas are available. The quantum also is not such as can be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable or exorbitant. In :4: :4: :4: such circumstances, the order under challenge requires no interference. Petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are granted six weeks time to comply with the directions, insofar as, deposit of arrears. Thereafter, they will deposit the rent regularly. Insofar as, the withdrawal of the amounts are concerned, liberty is granted to the respondents to apply for the same and such an Application would be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits and in accordance with law. *********