Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Union Bank Of India, Mahabubnagar ... vs Madhava Rao Brothers on 17 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(5)ALT32
ORDER Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.
1. The tenant-Bank is the appellant which has been directed to pay the rent for the premises in question at the rate of Rs. 1.25 Ps. per Sq.Ft. till the disposal of the Appeal AS 187/1995, vide order in CMP No. 2988/1997.
2. Looking to the question involved in this appeal and with the consent of the parties to it, this appeal has been heard on merits and is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
3. The facts are jejune. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant-Bank and its two Officers for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 38,139.90 in O.S.No. 51/1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar, alleging that the appellant-Bank had agreed to enhance the initial monthly rent of Rs. 595/- after a period of five years from the date it was inducted as a tenant in the premises in question, but it did not pay the agreed enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 1.25 ps. per Sq. Ft. with effect from 1-1-1985 as also the agreed house tax which comes to Rs. 1,500/- per month; The defendant unsuccessfully resisted the suit. The Subordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar, on 5-9-1994 passed a decree for the amount of Rs. 32,580/-with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit, that is 25-4-1991, till the date of the decree, that is 5-9-1994, and awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till realisation of the decretal amount and also ordered the appellant-Bank to pay proportionate costs.
4. The appellant-Bank challenged the judgment and decree in A.S. No.187/1995. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent-landlord filed C.M.P.N0.2988/1997 Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for directing the appellant-tenant to pay the rent of the premises in question at the rate of Rs. 1.25 per Sq.Ft. equivalent to Rs. 1,500/- per month during the pendency of the appeal as also the arrears of rent as claimed by the respondent. This application has been allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the trial Court has recorded a finding that the respondent-landlord is entitled to claim rent at the rate of Rs. 1.25 per Sq.Ft. and, therefore, the appellant-Bank is bound to pay the rent at the same rate.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the tenant-appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. It is an admitted fact that the respondent-landlord had filed a civil suit against the appellant-Bank and three of its Officers in O.S.No. 4/1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Mahabubnagar, for ejectment and damages at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month from 1-1-1993 as also Rs. 1,000/- as special damages for overstaying in the premises in question and this suit is still pending. It is also an admitted fact that the money decree passed in O.S. No. 5/89 (sic.) has been fully satisfied because the appellant-Bank has paid the decretal amount with interest and costs.
7. The grievance of the appellant is that the impugned order, whereby the appellant-Bank has been directed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-per month during the pendency of the appeal A.S.187/1995, is beyond the scope of the appeal for the simple reason that the appellant-Bank has satisfied the money decree that has been passed against it for arrears of rent, particularly when the civil suit for ejectment as also damages for the period which was not covered under the earlier suit is pending before the Court of the District Munsif, Mahabubnagar. There appears to be force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-Bank. The reason is that the money decree has been fully satisfied and the appellant has not claimed any interim relief and the claim of the respondent-landlord for rent or damages for the subsequent period for use and occupation as also ejectment is the subject-matter of the subsequent suit. The respondent was not entitled to claim future rent in an appeal against a money decree by the tenant, because it is beyond the scope of the appeal and what could not be done directly in this appeal cannot be done indirectly through an interim order. Had the decree been for ejectment and if the appellant had claimed stay of the operation of the decree for ejectment under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the things would have been different. Under these circumstances, we see no justification in directing the appellant-Bank to pay the rent at whatever rate during the pendency of the appeal A.S. 187/95.
3. Ex-consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the CM.P.No. 2988/1997 is dismissed. If, in pursuance of the impugned order, the appellant had paid any amount, it shall be refunded to him by the respondent-landlord. However, in the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.