Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, original plaintiff in RAD Suit No. 1958 of 2003, challenged the order dated 4 September 2018 by which the Appeal Court dismissed his application (Exhibit 13) to deposit rents pending Appeal No. 92 of 2014. The Petitioner had been permitted to deposit rent during the suit. The Respondents (original defendant landlords) opposed, arguing that after the decree, the Petitioner was not a tenant and the application was misconceived. They also had an application (Exhibit 15) seeking deposit of compensation at market rate. The High Court held that an appeal is a continuation of the suit, and the order permitting deposit of rent should continue pending appeal. The nomenclature 'rent' is not decisive; the court can direct deposit of compensation or mesne profits. The impugned order was set aside, and the Appeal Court was directed to decide Exhibit 13 afresh, keeping in mind that the nomenclature is not decisive and that the court can direct deposit of compensation. The Appeal Court was also directed to decide Exhibit 15 expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeal - Continuation of Suit - Order for deposit of rent pending suit continues pending appeal as appeal is a continuation of suit - The court held that the order permitting deposit of rent during the suit should continue during the appeal, as the appeal is a continuation of the suit. The nomenclature of 'rent' is not decisive; the court can direct deposit of compensation or mesne profits. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order permitting deposit of rent pending suit should continue pending appeal, and whether the nomenclature 'rent' is decisive when the tenancy is disputed.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 4 September 2018 is set aside. The Appeal Court is directed to decide the Petitioner's application (Exhibit 13) afresh, keeping in mind that the nomenclature of 'rent' is not decisive and that the court can direct deposit of compensation or mesne profits. The Appeal Court is also directed to decide the Respondents' application (Exhibit 15) expeditiously.
Law Points
- Appeal is continuation of suit
- Rent deposit order continues pending appeal
- Nomenclature of rent not decisive
- Court can direct deposit of compensation
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (12) 50
WRIT PETITION NO.13299 OF 2018
Mr. Umesh Tawari a/w. Mr. Mranal Mandhane and Ms. Hetal Vithlani I/b. M/s. S. Ashwinikumar and Co., for the Petitioner; Mr. Suraj Shah, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Pradeep Kumar Lalit Kumar Pandya
Ruxmani Harisingh Kapadia and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging order of Appeal Court dismissing application to deposit rents pending appeal.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of impugned order and making absolute his application (Exhibit 13) for permission to deposit rents pending appeal.
Filing Reason
The Appeal Court dismissed the Petitioner's application to deposit rents pending appeal, despite the Petitioner having been permitted to deposit rents during the suit.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed RAD Suit No. 1958 of 2003 against the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed Appeal No. 92 of 2014. During the suit, the Petitioner was permitted to deposit rents. The Appeal Court dismissed the Petitioner's application (Exhibit 13) to deposit rents pending appeal.
Issues
Whether the order permitting deposit of rent pending suit should continue pending appeal?
Whether the nomenclature 'rent' is decisive when the tenancy is disputed?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: Appeal is continuation of suit, so the same order for deposit of rent should continue. The impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Respondents: After the decree, Petitioner is not a tenant, so application to deposit rent is misconceived. Allowing Petitioner's application may prejudice Respondents' application (Exhibit 15) for deposit of compensation at market rate.
Ratio Decidendi
An appeal is a continuation of the suit. Therefore, an order permitting deposit of rent during the suit should continue pending appeal. The nomenclature of 'rent' is not decisive; the court can direct deposit of compensation or mesne profits under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Judgment Excerpts
In this case, even though, the Petitioner has applied for permission to deposit rents pending the Appeal, the nomenclature of 'Rent' used by the Petitioner is neither here nor there.
The Appeal Court ought to have considered the application at Exhibit 13 on its own merits and not merely on the basis of nomenclature used by the Petitioner.
The Appeal Court is directed to decide the application at Exhibit 13 afresh, keeping in mind that the nomenclature of 'Rent' is not decisive and that the Court can always direct deposit of compensation or mesne profits.
Procedural History
The Petitioner filed RAD Suit No. 1958 of 2003 which was decreed against him. He filed Appeal No. 92 of 2014. During the suit, he was permitted to deposit rent. He filed an application (Exhibit 13) in the appeal seeking permission to deposit rent pending appeal. The Appeal Court dismissed that application on 4 September 2018. The Petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 12
