http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7964 of 2001

PETITIONER: Imamuddin & Anr.

RESPONDENT: Mond. Ismail & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/2008

BENCH: A.K.MATHUR & AFTAB ALAM

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

       Heard learned counsel for the parties.         This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated  25.04.2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at  Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in Respondents’ Civil Revision Petition No. 521/2001 whereby  the learned Single Judge has reversed the order dated 17.3.2001 of the Addl. District  Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which order the  learned Addl. District Judge has  dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents herein against the order of  Trial Court  which had determined interim rent as per provisions of Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan  Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter for short the "Act").         We need not go into the chequered history of the matter.  Suffice it to say that the   appellants herein have purchased the suit properties being two shops by two separate  registered sale deeds and the same were duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur on  16.5.1994.           Thereafter, the appellants demanded rent from the respondents and on their  refusal to pay rent, they filed a suit for eviction of the respondents herein.  In the said  suit,  the Trial Court determined the interim rent payable by the respondents, which was  affirmed by the First Appellate Court.  Against the said fixation of interim rent by the  Trial Court, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court, the respondents herein  moved a Revision Petition before the High Court.  Since, the revision petition was not  maintainable before the High Court, the appellants have moved this Court by the present  appeal.         A suit for specific performance was filed by the respondents herein on the ground  that they had entered into an agreement to sale and therefore they are not likely to be  evicted from the suit shops. The said suit was contested by the parties hereto and the same  has been dismissed by the Trial Court and a decree of specific performance has not been  granted.  However, the Trial Court directed the respondents herein to refund the amount  of Rs.1,29,000/- with interest.  Against that order the appellants, as also the respondents,   herein filed two separate appeals before the High Court.  The said appeals are pending.           Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in terms of proviso to Section  115 of the Code Of Civil Procedure,   the High Court ought not to have entertained the  revision petition filed by the respondents as the order of fixation of rent was purely an  interlocutory order.  Be that as it may, we need not go into this question at this stage as  in  order to put the present controversy to an end, we thing it just and proper that the  respondents shall continue to deposit in Court the rent month by month and it will be  open for the appellants to withdraw the same amount on furnishing bank guarantee till  the amount of rent reaches Rs.1,29,000/-.  In case the appeals are not disposed of by the  High Court and the deposit of rent exceeds the amount of Rs.1,29,000/-  the respondents  will continue to deposit the rent but then it will be open for the appellants to withdraw th e  amount without furnishing any bank guarantee.           We make it clear that the abovesaid arrangement has been made by us in order to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

decide the equities between the parties, as  in the present case, the parties are seriously  contesting the appeals against the order of refusal to grant a decree of specific  performance and the refund of Rs.1,29,000/-to the appellants herein.  We have not  expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter but mentioned the facts only to decide  the controversy at hand.           The appeal stands disposed of  in the above terms.  No order as to costs.