Himachal Pradesh High Court
Maya Podder And Anr vs Pradeep Aggarwal on 19 January, 2018
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
CMPMO No. 39 of 2018 .
19.1.2018 Present: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
CMPMO No. 39 of 2018 and CMP No. 1026 of 2018 Issue notice to the respondents returnable for 12.3.2018, on taking steps within a period of two days.
Averments contained in the instant application as well as accompanying petition suggest that pursuant to the judgment passed in rent petition bearing registration No. 29/2 of 2013 titled as Maya Podder and Anr. V. Pradeep Aggarwal, the applicant petitioner, who was a respondent/tenant before the Court below, filed a miscellaneous application before the Rent controller-1, Solan, seeking therein direction to the landlord-respondent herein, to receive rent in terms of judgment dated 29.12.2017. It also emerge from the order dated 12.1.2018, passed by the Rent Controller that pursuant to the aforesaid application having been filed by the applicant/petitioner, notices were issued to the landlord (respondent No.1) and despite service, landlord (respondent No.1) failed to put in appearance, but fact remains that application having been filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Subsequent to dismissal of his earlier application, applicant-petitioner again filed an application, seeking therein permission of the Court to deposit arrears of rent pursuant to judgment dated 29.12.2017, in the Registry of the Court, but aforesaid prayer was not accepted.
In the aforesaid background, applicant-petitioner has approached this Court, praying therein that necessary direction may be issued to the court below to permit him to deposit arrear of rent in terms of judgment dated 29.12.2017, either in the bank account of ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2018 22:57:38 :::HCHP landlord or in the Registry of the Court. Perusal of orders passed by .
the Court below (Annexure P1), clearly suggests that application as referred herein above, came to be filed before expiry of 30 days i.e. period granted by the court below and as such, it can be presumed that applicant- petitioner, in compliance of judgment passed by the court below, made an endevour to deposit the amount on or before the expiry of 30 days but since despite that, none put in appearance on behalf of the landlords before the court below, prayer having been made on behalf of the applicant-petitioner was not accepted by the court below.
Consequently, it would be in the interest of justice, if execution of judgment dated 29.12.2017, is stayed till further orders subject to applicant's depositing the arrear of rent in the Registry of this Court within a period of one week. Ordered accordingly.
List on 12.3.2018.
Copy dasti.
19th January, 2018 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Vacation Judge
::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2018 22:57:38 :::HCHP