JUDGMENT - Rebello F.I., J.:The short but important question that arises in this Revision Application is whether Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as introduced by an amendment of this Court with effect from 1st October, 1983 empowers the Court of Small Causes to require a statutory tenant to deposit rent in proceedings for eviction initiated by a landlord during the pendency of such proceedings. As the question is of far reaching consequence and as none appeared for the respondent, the Court requested Shri Dharmadhikari to act as amicus curiae and assist the Court in the matter.

2. The present petitioner is the original defendant and the respondent herein, the original plaintiff. The respondent who is the landlord filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the petitioner who is the tenant, for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises leased by the respondent to the petitioner which tenancy is covered under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (which hereinafter shall be referred to as The Rent Act). It was the case of the respondent that the monthly rent reserved, was Rs. 75/- and that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from 1st January, 1980 till 31st May, 1984. In the prayer clause there is no relief for recovery of arrears of rent. The main prayer was only for eviction of the petitioner.

The petitioner herein filed his written statement and contested the claim of the respondent. The petitioner denied that the monthly rent reserved was Rs. 75/-. It was the contention of the petitioner that the contractual rent was Rs. 20/- per month and that the petitioner had paid the rent upto December, 1983. The rest of the averments are not material for the purpose of disposal of this application.

3. At the stage of scrutiny, the trial Court directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent from 1st January, 1980 at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month and to continue depositing the same at the same rate by 15th of each and every month. The petitioner was granted time to deposit arrears of rent upto 30th September, 1991. It was further directed that the money as and when deposited, was to be paid over to the respondent on account. It may be mentioned that the Court heard the parties before passing the Order. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that the Court could not pass any such order as the main prayer in the suit is for possession and there is no prayer for recovery of rent. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of (Jamnadas Motilal Vanwari v. Ishwaribai Tejandas Alwani)1, 1981 Bom.C.R. 571. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the Court had jurisdiction to pass such an Order and for this purpose the respondent relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of (Chandrakant Shankarrao Deshmukh v. Haribhau Tukaramji Kathani)2, 1983 Mh.L.J. 88 and in the case of (Sangeeta Prints v. Hemal Prints)3, 1986(2) Bom.C.R. 519. After considering the said judgments, the Court was pleased to uphold the proposition canvassed on behalf of the respondent, by relying on judgments cited in support thereof. The Court further held that the respondent has produced counterfoils in respect of the rent reserved which showed that the rent was paid at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month and consequently directed the petitioner to deposit arrears calculated at the said rate and to continue to deposit at the same rate every month until final disposal.

4. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order has challenged the said order by this Civil Revision Application. The matter was admitted on 9th January, 1992 and the learned Single Judge hearing the matter at the stage of admission was pleased to grant stay on the ground that the said order prima facie conflict with the Full Bench Judgment in the case of Jamnadas Motilal Vanwari v. Ishwaribai Tejandas Alwani. At the hearing Counsel for the petitioner argued that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document