1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 513/2010. Haribhau K. Pande … versus … Mangesh P. Chande and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 26, 2010. Heard Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2. Short grievance made by Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel is that, when the provisions of Order 15A of Code of Civil Procedure contemplate an application for directions to deposit amount equivalent to rent to be moved in a suit for eviction filed by the landlord, the application as moved by respondent / landlord in Regular Civil Suit No. 169/2008 was rightly rejected by the trial Court. He points out that Regular Civil Suit No.169/2008 is filed by petitioner / tenant against landlord for injunction and hence provisions of Order 15A are not applicable to it. He points out that the landlord then approached District Judge-1, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.36/2009 and ignoring this position, the District Judge-1, Nagpur has allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner / tenant to deposit all the arrears of rent at 2 Rs.550/- per month from January 1996 till April, 2006. He has invited attention to similar application moved in Regular Civil Suit No. 444/2006 and pointed out that, that suit is filed for eviction of petitioner / tenant by landlord. Learned counsel for respondent has contended that the Lower Appellate Court has rightly considered the fact that arrears of rent are outstanding and has not been paid and has directed the amount in arrears to be deposited. As the arrears are admitted, this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. It is apparent that the provisions of Order 15A occupy the field and hence recourse to section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is not permissible. Respondent / landlord has filed suit for eviction vide Regular Civil Suit No.444/2006 and in that suit an application under Order 15A for directing the petitioner/tenant to deposit the arrears is also moved by respondent. That application therefore can be decided in accordance with law by the court of Small Causes before whom it is pending. The impugned judgment dated 28.10.2009 delivered in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 36 to the extent it grants that application at Exh.26 of landlord is therefore set aside. Perusal of the said judgment dated 28.10.2009 shows that it is a common judgment and Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel has pointed out that application at Exh.5 filed by petitioner to restrain the respondent landlord from restraining petitioner from using terrace which was allowed by the trial Court formed the subject matter of another appeal, that appeal is also allowed by the Lower Appellate Court. He contends that there was a receipt by respondent / 3 landlord dated 1.6.1989 which acknowledge amount of 1,50,000/- and permitted user of terrace for petitioner in case the landlord fail to refund it. The lower Appellate Court has considered that receipt and disbelieved it. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with that part of the order Writ Petition is thus partly allowed, and the order directing petitioner / tenant to deposit monthly amount of rent is only set aside. Rule accordingly, no cost. At this stage, Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel states that proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 169/2008 should be expedited. Advocate Kulkarni, has no objection. Accordingly the Additional Small Causes Court at Nagpur is directed to decide the suit as early as possible and in any case by 31.01.2011. JUDGE Rgd.