wp1894.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1894/2011 Prakash Laxmandas Damwani -vs- Dhanraj Chuharmal Jaikalyani ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri R. A. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 17/06/2011 This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 24th November, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge-10, Nagpur, by which order the revision application, filed by the petitioner under Section 34 (c) of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, came to be rejected. The petitioner is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.584/2003, filed by the respondent herein for eviction, possession and damages and for grant of mesne profits under the provisions of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondent claims to be the landlord of the premises in question wherein the petitioner is a tenant in respect of a shop premises, wherein he is running a beer bar. The respondent-plaintiff had filed an application under Order 15A of the Civil Procedure Code for seeking a direction against the wp1894.11.odt 2/3 petitioner to deposit the rent in the Court. The said application came to be allowed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur by order dated 17/09/2010 and the petitioner was directed to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.8,400/- for the period mentioned in the application. The petitioner thereafter carried the matter in revision by filing Revision Application bearing No.36/2010, which as stated herein above, came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 24/11/2010. Initially, the petitioner had sought to challenge the applicability of the Order 15A of the Civil Procedure Code contending that the said Order would not apply on the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code in the year 2002. However, Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the hearing of the above petition for adjudication, fairly conceded that the petitioner does not want to press the said challenge. In so far as the impugned order is concerned, the said impugned order confirms the order passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner to deposit the amount at the rate of Rs.8,400/- per month for the period claimed in the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the agreement is in respect of the payment of rent at Rs.7,000/- per month, whereas the case as can be seen from the pleadings of the respondent is that the agreed rent is Rs.14,000/- per month. wp1894.11.odt 3/3 In the context of the rival contentions, the trial Court had directed the petitioner to deposit at the rate of Rs.8,400/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner is running a beer bar in the premises in question and it has been observed by the Revisional Court that the petitioner has not paid rent either to the plaintiff or to any third person, who is claiming the property. The Revisional Court was therefore of the view that in the conspectus of the facts as narrated above, the order passed by the trial Court could not be said to be suffering from any infirmity. Having perused the orders passed by both the Courts below, in my view, they do not warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE KHUNTE