Mrs. Krishna Sharma vs Mohammad Shafi and others

K.C. Puri

C.M 14037-38-CII of 2012

The application stands allowed and the documents are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

C.M No. 8345-46-CII of 2012

The application stands allowed and the documents are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

MAIN CASE

Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 23.11.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon (Annexure P-9) vide which petitioner Smt. Krishna Sharma was directed to pay rent @ Rs. 9500/- per month by invoking the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. Briefly stated, Mohammad Shafi, Khurshid Banno, Mohammad Nadim, Umme Salma through General Power of Attorney Mohammad Sabir filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. It is alleged that plaintiffs are owners and the defendant-petitioner is under the possession of the suit property as tenant on payment of rent @ Rs. 9500/- per month.

The stand taken by the petitioner is that her son Sunil Kumar is the tenant in the premises under Mohammad Shafi. It is further alleged that power of attorney in favour of Mohammad Sabir is forged and fabricated document. It is also alleged that an amount of Rs. 7 lacs has been spent by son of petitioner on renovation of the premises. The said amount of Rs. 7 lacs also carries interest @ 18% per annum.

The learned trial Court, after hearing both the sides, directed the defendant-petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 9500/- per month as rent. The said order has been challenged in the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not the tenant under Mohammad Sabir but her son Sunil Kumar is the tenant. So, no order can be passed against her. It is further alleged that the power of attorney which formed the basis of that suit, is forged and fabricated document and in case the amount is paid to the power of attorney holder, then the petitioner would not be able to recover the said amount. It is further submitted that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that petitioner is tenant, in that case, sufficient time be granted.

Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met in case the petitioner is ordered to deposit the amount as directed by the trial Court. The right of petitioner can be safeguarded by non-disbursing the said amount to the plaintiffs till the final decision of case. However, the petitioner shall carry on depositing the rent regularly before the trial Court.

In these circumstances, the present petition stands disposed of with modification in the impugned order dated 23.11.2011 (Annexure P-9) that the petitioner shall pay the said amount within three months from today. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.