Shimeg Graphics Pvt Ltd v. K K Pandit

1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred against the order of Additional District Judge, Ms. Ina Malhotra dated May 15, 2009. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Judge on an application filed under Order 39 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondent herein had directed the appellant to liquidate his liability towards arrears of the admitted rent within two weeks from the date of the order. The appellant was also directed to ensure future remittance of the rent to the respondent month by month on or before the 5th day of every month. 2010:DHC:1840 In appeal before this court, an order was passed on July 21, 2009 and thereby the impugned order dated May 15, 2009 was stayed till the next date of hearing, subject to the appellant depositing the entire arrears of rent with effect from February, 2008 till date @ Rs.28,750/- per month and also subject to the appellant continuing to pay the future rent by 15th of each month. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent who has filed suit for possession in the trial Court has yet to establish that that he has stepped into the shoes of late Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit who was the landlady of the appellant. As per the counsel, though the appellant was dealing with the respondent and was also remitting rent to him during the lifetime of Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit, but that was being done only in his capacity as the attorney holder of Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit. Hence, it is further submitted that unless and until the trial Court decides the locus/status of the respondent and other related issues raised by the appellant in the trial court, the direction issued vide order dated May 15, 2009 directing the appellant to pay the admitted rent to the respondent deserves to be set-aside/stayed. As against the above, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the `Lease Deed’ dated February 01, 2005 on the basis of which the appellant is contending that the respondent was only the power of attorney holder of Late Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit is an unregistered document and no reliance on the same can, therefore, be placed. Having regard to the disputed questions of fact which have been raised by the respective counsels before me, I deem it proper to confirm the order passed by this court on July 21, 2009 in so far as it directs the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the arrears of rent till December, 2009 have been deposited. It is further stated that the appellant is no longer in possession of the premises and that the keys thereof have been deposited in this court. This fact also finds mention in the order of this court dated December 23, 2009. In view of the above, the Registry is directed to transfer the arrears of rent which have been deposited in this court to the trial court and is also directed to deposit the keys with the trial court. The arrears of rent and the keys shall remain with the trial court till the suit is finally disposed of. With this direction, the appeal is disposed of.

REKHA SHARMA, J. MARCH 26, 2010 PC..