1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.6305/2005 Sheikh Ahmed s/o Sheikh Chand Mohammad ...Versus... Quazi Nasiruddin s/o Quazi Ikramuddin _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's order appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's order. __________________________________________________________________ CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 19.12.2005. 1. Heard Advocate Shri V.V. Bhangde for petitioner-tenant and Advocate Shri P.A. Markandeywar for respondent-landlord. Their respective clients are also present before the Court. 2. The suit filed by present respondent- landlord is for recovery of Rs.1,47,875/- on account of arrears of rent. On the other hand present petitioner has already filed another civil suit 2 complaining of excess payment of rent and for its recovery. The said suit for recovery of excess payment of rent has been dismissed in default by the Small Causes Court and its restoration has been refused by it. The said order of Small Causes Court refusing restoration is maintained by appellate court. Advocate Shri Bhangde contends that past conduct of petitioner was not relevant and reason put forth by him for his absence on 3.1.2003 i.e. on the date of dismissal of suit alone was relevant. Against this Advocate Shri Markandeywar argued that it was not dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 but it was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore, the appeal was only remedy and Misc. Civil Application for restoration could not have been filed. 3. After hearing both Counsel, the Court felt that the issue can be settled once for all by permitting the Court to decide the grievance on merits. Advocate Shri Markandeywar after 3 consulting his client states that as on today arrears of 59 months @ Rs.3,000/- per month are recoverable from the present petitioner and he should be directed to deposit that amount. Advocate Shri Bhangde on the other hand contends that the claim is exorbitant. According to him the rent at the most for last three years is due. 4. I find it unnecessary to go into all these controversies. The parties after consulting their counsels agree to following arrangement. The present petitioner shall deposit amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- with the Small Causes Court within a period of four weeks from today. After the amount is so deposited, his civil suit bearing Regular Civil suit No.111/1998 shall be restored back to the file of said court for its trial on merits. It is made clear that the said amount shall be without prejudice to the contentions of landlord and tenant. After the amount is so deposited the court below shall permit the present respondent-landlord to withdraw the 4 same. The proceedings in said civil suit are expedited and the trial court shall decide that suit as early as possible and in any case on or before 30th June, 2006. In so far as the proceedings in Civil Suit No.93/2000 filed by present respondent- landlord are concerned, the same are also expedited. 5. Advocate Shri Markandeywar states that the landlord has filed his affidavit of examination-in- chief in March 2005. The present petitioner shall cross-examine the landlord within a period of three weeks from today, and after the landlord closes his evidence, the petitioner-tenant shall tender his evidence in the matter. After the evidence of parties in this suit filed by landlord is recorded, the trial court shall proceed further and record evidence in the suit of present petitioner-tenant. 6 It is made clear that both the suits shall be decided on or before 30th June, 2006. In view of this, the impugned orders are quashed and set 5 aside. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs. JUDGE SSW