Arvind Ganpatrao Rokade v. Dattatraya Nanasaheb Bhagat
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The petition is rejected summarily. Appeal is directed to be expedited. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)
Judgment
Mr. P.N. Karlekar for petitioner. Mr. Jaydeep Deo i/by Mrs. Suhasini Mutalik for respondent nos.1A to 1C. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : June 15, 2007. Date : June 15, 2007. Date : June 15, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:
Heard Mr. Karlekar the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant. By the impugned order dated 22/1/2007 the learned Ad-hoc District Judge - 10 at Pune has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.8000/- per month in addition to the recovery payment of the rent till the decision in Civil Appeal No. 633 of 2003.
Admittedly, the decree of eviction is under challenge. The premises are four rooms with a toilet block and they are being used as residence-cum-office by an Advocate. The total payment for the time being as directed by the impugned order will come to Rs.8000/- plus Rs.275/- per month. :2:
It is well settled that when an appeal against a decree of eviction is pending, the tenant should be directed to pay a reasonable amount of rent. In this regard Mr. Kalekar has relied upon the decision in the case of Atmaram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. [(2005) 1 SCC 705].
Having regards to the fact that the suit premises are located near the PMC Depot in Shivajinagar and the size of the premises, I am satisfied that the directions given by the Lower Appellate Court for payment of Rs.8000/- plus Rs.275/- per month cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary and, therefore, no interference is called for in the said order while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The petition is rejected summarily. Appeal is directed to be expedited. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Jun 2007. The bench was B H MARLAPALLE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.