Amber Kukreti vs Satye Singh Kandari

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

This is landlord’s petition against the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by Acting District Judge, Dehradun in Execution Case No. 102 of 2019.

The only dispute raised in this writ petition is that whether respondent, who is tenant in respect of the shop owned by the petitioner, has deposited the

entire decretal amount in terms of the stay order passed by this Court on 20.03.2019 in WPMS No. 741 of 2019. Relevant extract of the said order is

reproduced below:-

“Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the material available on record, as an interim measure, it is

provided, in case, the petitioner deposits entire decretal amount as awarded by learned court below, after deducting the amount, if already

deposited, within a period of three weeks from today the effect and operation of impugned judgment dated 23.05.2018 passed by learned

1st Additional District Judge, Dehradun in S.C.C.R. No. 38 of 1995 and impugned judgment dated 05.07.1995 passed by learned IInd

Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. It is also directed that the petitioner shall continue to pay

the rent to the respondent.â€​

Subsequently, vide order dated 17.06.2019, this Court granted further three weeks’ time to the respondent to make compliance of the order

dated 20.03.2019 and it was further provided that in case of failure on the part of the petitioner to clear all the dues, interim order shall automatically

stand vacated.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.14,100/- (after adjusting Rs.2716.75 already deposited by

the respondent), although he was required to deposit Rs.19,690.17, as decretal amount upto 02.07.2019. In support of this contention, learned counsel

for the petitioner has relied upon one tender (annexure No. 5 to the writ petition), which shows that a sum of Rs.14,100/- was deposited by the

respondent in the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Dehradun on 02.07.2019 and another sum of Rs.2,716.75 was deposited by him earlier. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that learned executing court/IInd Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun has erred in holding that the respondent

has deposited a sum of Rs.17,718.00 through tender. He further submits that even if the amount mentioned in the order passed by executing court is

treated to be correct, then also the decretal amount falls short of what respondent was required to deposit in terms of order of this Court.

Per contra, Sri B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that as per order dated 20.03.2019, the decretal amount

was to be deposited after adjusting the amount already deposited by the respondent. He further submits that his client/respondent has already

deposited more than Rs.30,000/- as decretal amount i.e., between 1995 to 2019 on different dates and the said amount is liable to be adjusted.

Admittedly the eviction suit filed against the respondent has been decreed by the trial court. Revision petition filed by the respondent too has been

dismissed. Judgment and order rendered by trial court as well as revisional court are subject matter of challenge in WPMS No. 741 of 2019 and

coordinate Bench of this Court has been pleased to pass a conditional stay order in favour of the respondent. Respondent can avail protection of the

said stay order only if he fulfills the condition attached by this Court, while granting the stay. According to the respondent, he has deposited the entire

decretal amount, therefore, he has fulfilled the condition attached to the stay order, while petitioner submits that the amount deposited by the

respondent falls short of the amount, which respondent is required to deposit as decretal amount.

Since this is a factual dispute and this Court cannot go into such disputes, while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

therefore, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to learned District Judge, Dehradun to look into sufficiency

or otherwise of the amount deposited by respondent as decretal amount.

Accordingly, impugned order dated 26.09.2019 passed by Acting District Judge, Dehradun is set aside. Learned District Judge is directed to

consider whether sufficient compliance of the condition, attached to the stay order dated 20.03.2019, has been made by the respondent. In case,

learned District Judge comes to the conclusion that the sufficient compliance has not been made, then he shall send the matter to the executing court

for appropriate orders.

With the aforesaid observation, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.