Ramdhan vs Additional District Judge (Fast Track) and Others

R.S. Chouhan, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.05.2002, passed by the Civil Judge (JD) J.M. Dausa, District Dausa whereby the learned Judge had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 18,504/- as interim rent in the bank account of the respondent No. 3. He has also challenged the order dated 21.11.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track) Bandikui, Headquarter Dausa, District Dausa whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 21.05.2002.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent No. 3 had filed an eviction suit on the ground of default of payment. In his reply, the petitioner had submitted a series of documents to buttress his contention that in fact, it is respondent No. 3 who owes him more money than the petitioner owes as rent for the premises. Despite the existence of these documents, still vide order dated 21.05.2002, he has been directed to pay Rs. 18,504/-. He has challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority. However, vide order dated 21.11.2009, the appellate authority has upheld the order dated 21.05.2002. Hence, this petition before this Court.

Unfortunately, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the order dated 21.05.2002 or in the order dated 21.11.2009. His only contention is that until unless the documents are appreciated, the learned Judge could not have directed him to deposit the money.

There is no illegality or perversity in the said orders. Therefore, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.