A court has jurisdiction to pass an order directing a tenant to deposit rent and mesne profits pending a suit for possession and rent or mesne profits under the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949.

Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - RENT CONTROL - C. P. AND BERAR LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - APPLICABILITY - SUIT FOR RENT AND MESNE PROFITS - ORDER DIRECTING TENANT TO DEPOSIT RENT AND MESNE PROFITS PENDING SUIT - JURISDICTION OF COURT - SECTION 151, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 39, RULE 10, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 12, RULE 1, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:

In two revision applications, the common question of law raised was whether a court has jurisdiction to pass an order directing a tenant to deposit rent and mesne profits pending a suit for possession and rent or mesne profits under the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949.
Finding of the Court:

1. The provisions of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 do not apply to certain classes of premises, residential as well as business, constructed after a particular year unlike the provisions of the other rent restriction Acts. 2. Section 151, Civil Procedure Code and the inherent jurisdiction and powers of the Court are ideally meant and suited to bring relief and redress to meet the ends of the situation and to meet the ends of justice. 3. Order 39, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code empowers a Court to order the deposit in Court or delivery to such last named party, with or without security, subject to the further direction of the Court, where the subject-matter of a suit is money or some other thing capable of delivery and any party thereto admits that he holds such money or other thing as a trustee for another party, or that it belongs or is due to another party. 4. The subject matter of a suit between a landlord and tenant is money and immoveable property. Though immoveable property may not be a “thing” capable of delivery the money on account of the use and occupation of property admittedly belonging to another is undoubtedly one such. 5. A tenant can, therefore, always be directed, subject to the other circumstances and conditions, to deposit rent due or becoming due from him to his landlord during the pendency of a suit, call it either compensation for use and occupation or rent, depending upon whether the tenancy is or is not terminated.
Issues: 1. Whether a court has jurisdiction to pass an order directing a tenant to deposit rent and mesne profits pending a suit for possession and rent or mesne profits under the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949? 2. Whether the provisions of section 151, Civil Procedure Code and Order 39, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code can be invoked to pass such an order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of section 151, Civil Procedure Code and Order 39, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code can be invoked to pass an order directing a tenant to deposit rent and mesne profits pending a suit for possession and rent or mesne profits under the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. 2. The subject matter of a suit between a landlord and tenant is money and immoveable property. Though immoveable property may not be a “thing” capable of delivery the money on account of the use and occupation of property admittedly belonging to another is undoubtedly one such. 3. A tenant can, therefore, always be directed, subject to the other circumstances and conditions, to deposit rent due or becoming due from him to his landlord during the pendency of a suit, call it either compensation for use and occupation or rent, depending upon whether the tenancy is or is not terminated.
Final Decision: Revision applications dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT - Tulpule, J.-These two revision applications raise a common question of law and which question is increasingly being raised in a large number of suits and proceedings between landlords and tenants in Courts in this region, governed by the provisions of C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949.

2. The provisions of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order do not apply to certain classes of premises, residential as well as business, constructed after a particular year unlike the provisions of the other rent restriction Acts. Suits, therefore, in this region are filed depending upon whether the Rent Control Order is applicable or otherwise, after -obtaining permission from the Rent Controller or straightway in the Small Cause Court so far as Nagpur is concerned and in other Courts having jurisdiction.

3. The opponents in both these petitions are Haribhau and others, the owners of the premises called “Prakash Bhavan”, Ward No. 41, New Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. The petitioners are tenants in these premises occupying separately portions thereof. Civil Suit No. 1130 of 1977 was filed by Haribhau and others against their tenant Chandrakant, who was a tenant in respect of the premises and agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 300. Civil Suit No. 1132 of 1977 was filed by the same Haribhau and others against their tenant Narendra, who was a tenant of premises leased out on agreed monthly rent of Rs. 115. Since the premises were constructed subsequent to 1951, it was claimed the Rent Control Order did not apply to them. The plaintiffs had terminated the tenancy of both Chandrakant as well as Narendra by a notice to quit and demanded possession from them. Both these suits came to be filed in September 1977. In both these suits, the claim for rent at the agreed rate was, for the month of August 1977. From 1st September 1977, plaintiffs had claimed mesne profits up to the date of the filing of the suits, which was 12th September 1977.

4. On 1st April 1978, the plaintiffs filed two applications in each of these suits, which were Ex. 13 in Civil Suit No. 1132 of 1977 against Narendra and also the same Ex. 13 in Civil Suit No. 1130 of 1977 against Chandrakant. They prayed therein that the defendants who were tenants and were, there- fore, liable to pay rent or compensation for use and occupation as damages be directed to pay that amount, namely Rs. 115 in Narendra's case and Rs. 300 in Chandrakant's case, per month in the Court. The said amount, they contended, was accumulating and the defendants are taking undue advantage of the pendency of the proceedings and are not paying any charges even with regard to their use and occupation of the premises in their occupation. He, therefore, prayed that the tenant's defendants be directed to pay the amounts at the said rate up to 30th April 1978 and thereafter go on depositing at that rate for the future period, until the disposal of the suit.

5. Both these applications came to be allowed by the learned trial Judge by his order dated 21–12–1979. Defendant-tenants were directed to deposit the amounts per month as well as the arrears as claimed by the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge observed that the plaintiffs would be required to pay Corporation taxes as the rent is inclusive of those taxes and if they do not receive anything from the tenants, then they would be hard put to pay those taxes. The learned trial Judge granted the request on the ground that it was necessary to do so to meet the ends of justice, in the exercise of his inherent powers under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The defendants-tenants have challenged these orders and have filed these Revision Applications disputing the correctness of these orders.

6. These Revision Applications came to be placed before a Single Judge (Mr. Justice Mohta) of this Court. Before the learned Single Judge reliance was placed upon a decision, also of a single Judge of this Court, in (Suresh v. Pnrushottam)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document