IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(Ord.) No.477 of 2007. Date of decision: 19.05.2008. Prem Singh & Anr. ….Appellants Versus Vikas & Another ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellants: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For Respondent-1: M/s.K.D. Sood and Sanjeev Sood, Advocates. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu, in CMA No.25-VI/07 allowing the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Grievance of the appellants is that such an application was allowed without imposing any conditions on the appellants to furnish security in the event of an order being passed against the respondent. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 The plaintiff filed the suit out of which the present proceedings arise praying for a decree of declaration that the suit premises are in his possession as tenant on payment of annual rent of Rs.2 lacs and he is entitled to its use and occupation in terms of the provisions of the existing lease deed and the provisions of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 and consequent relief prohibiting and restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the premises was prayed for. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the law is well settled that in such a situation where a decree is of the nature prayed for by the plaintiff in which interim directions are sought, no interim relief can be granted unless conditions are imposed on the petitioner seeking relief. Apart from the fact that the issue would require determination by some evidence, which admittedly has not been done, the respondent had offered and is still offering money according to the terms of the lease according to which he was in occupation which amount was not accepted by the appellants merely on the ground of determination of their interse rights. There is, thus, nothing illegal in the orders of the learned District Judge. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of with the direction that the tenant-respondent shall deposit the admitted amount of use and occupation charges in the learned trial Court. It is clarified that in case of 3 failure of deposit, the order in appeal shall stand vacated. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 18th June, 2008 when the amount offered by the respondent shall be either paid to the defendants or deposited in Court. In case of any dispute between the appellants-defendants regarding either the amount or entitlement of the amount to be deposited, it shall remain deposited with the learned trial Court to be invested in fixed deposit and shall not be disbursed to any person but shall be subject to the final decree which will be passed in suit. May 19, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.