AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The same order has been assailed by both sets of parties.The earlier petition is by the plaintiffs who obtained an ex parte evictiondecree and the later
petition is by the defendants.The plaintiffs are aggrieved by an order by which the ex parte decree has been stayed by directing prospective deposits
to be made in instalments at the same rate at which rent and maintenance charges were paid in 2010. According to the plaintiffs, the deposit should
have been directed from the date of the decree, the rate should have been enhanced since the order was passed in the year 2017 and there was no
scope for directing the deposit to be made in installments.
The defendants, on the other hand, say that the decree was passed without even the Court recording its satisfaction as to the service of the notice
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The defendants claim that the perfunctory ex parte decree is liable to be set aside for the
mere asking.
As to the rate of the deposit to be Rs.57,000 per month, the defendants claim that the in the year 2010 it was agreed that the rent would be of
Rs.28,500/and maintenance charges would be Rs.28,500/-; but the plaintiffs had clubbed the two figures together and claimed Rs.57,000/- per month
as rent. The defendants also claim to have undertaken the maintenance work themselves and suggest that no deposit of the amount of account of
maintenance is liable to be made.
These matters do not require much time to be wasted on them. It is a purely ad-hoc arrangement that is made during the pendency of an application or
an appeal for setting aside an order and should be dealt with in a summary manner. The plaintiffs are right that the deposit should have been directed
to be made from the date of the decree and not from the date of the order. The plaintiffs are also right that the rent paid in the year 2010 cannot be
the same in the year 2017, notwithstanding the valuation report which has been procured by the defendants.
As to whether the rent ought to be Rs.28,500/- or the combined amount of Rs.57,000/- per month, again much time need not be wasted over the same,
particularly since the defendants are confident that the decree is liable to be set aside and the money deposited by them would be refunded to them.
It is also held that the Court below had due authority to direct the deposit to be made in installments. Accordingly, the order impugned dated July 25,
2017 is modified by directing the defendants to deposit an amount of Rs.70,000/- per month beginning the month following the date when the decree
was passed.
Such deposit will be made with the Court below from month to month prospectively with effect from May, 2018 by the fifteenth day of each month.
The arrears, if any, in terms of this order, will be deposited by the defendants in the Court below in two installments by the end of June, 2018 and July,
2018.
The trial Court is requested to ensure that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree is taken up and decided in accordance with law within
six months from the date, subject, however, to the deposit in terms of this order being made. C.O. 2703 of 2017 and C.O. 516 of 2018 are disposed of
without any order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the
requisite formalities.