Rajdhari Kushwaha vs Civil Judge (S.D.)

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—The petitioner instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession in regard to a shop allegedly allotted in his favour by the defendant respondents. During the pendency of the suit, he moved an application seeking permission of the trial Court to deposit monthly rent in the Court. The application was opposed by the defendants contending that there is no provision where under, the petitioner could be permitted to deposit the rent in Court. It was further contended by the defendants that the suit itself is based on mala fide considerations inasmuch as, the period for which allotment of the shop was made in favour of the petitioner had expired and, thereafter, proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were initiated against him and are pending before the Estate Officer. In order to create unnecessary complications in the smooth conduct of those proceedings, the petitioner has instituted the suit in question.

The trial Court by the impugned order dated 28 July 2015 rejected the application 42 Ga moved by the petitioner seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rent in Court. It has been held that in a suit for permanent injunction, there is no provision where under, the petitioner can be given permission to deposit the rent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the objections filed by the defendant respondents that proceedings for eviction are pending against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is wholly incorrect. He further submitted that the application filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 also stands rejected. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner to deposit rent in the court should have been allowed.

According to the defendants, the period of allotment of the shop had expired. Status of the petitioner, according to the defendant respondents is that of an unauthorised occupant. In such circumstances, they have refused to accept the rent, which the petitioner had tendered to them. In a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, the petitioner does not have any right to compel the defendants to accept rent from him, specially when a specific plea was taken that the occupation of the petitioner over the shop in dispute is unauthorised. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.