MANISHA LALWANIversusD.V. PAUL

                                 [2009] 8 S.C.R. 889

    J                            MANISHA LALWANI                             A
                                           v.
                                      D.V. PAUL
                        (Civil Appeal Nos.32~4-3235 of 2009)

                                     MAY 5, 2009
                                                                             B
     _,           [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]
         (



                  Rent Control - Conditional decree pa,ssed by High Court
             - Tenant directed to deposit Rs.10,0001- in trial court within
             4 months or else trial court directed to pass decree of eviction c
             - Application for extension of time to deposit the amount -
             Disposed of, by High Court with direction to Executing Court
             to conduct inquiry as to whether maid servant of the decree
             holder had received a bank draft of Rs. 10, 0001 - on his behalf
             from the tenant - Held: For executing the decree, it was not D
             necessary to hold an inquiry whether in fact the maid-servant
             had received the bank draft or not because in the conditional
             decree of the High Court, it was made clear that such amount
             must be deposited in trial court which was not done by tenant
             - Hence, no reason for the Executing Court to not proceed E
             with execution of the decree - However, it would ;be open to
     ~
             the Executing Court to proceed with the inquiry as directed
    _,       by High Court.

                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
             3234-3235 of 2009.                                              F

                  From the Judgment & Order dated 6.12.2007 of the High
             Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in MCC
             No. 1876 of 2007 and order dated 7.1.2008 in I.A. No. 14800
             of 2007                                                         G

                 Ravindra Shrivastava, Akshat, Shrivastava, P.P. Singh,
             lnderjeet Yadav for the Appellants.

•                Rohit Arya, Nitin Gaur and S.K. Sabharwal for the
                                      889                                    H
    890          SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.


A Respondents.                                                            "<
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          TARlJN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.

B        2. These appeals are directed against an order dated 6th
    of December, 2007, passed by the High Court of Madhya
    Pradesh at Jabalpur in MCC No.1876 of 2007, by which the              >.
                                                                           •
    application filed for extension of time fixed by the High Court
    while passing the judgment dated 4th of May, 2006, was
c   disposed of with certain directions.

          3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
    have examined the impugned order and other materials on
    record. While passing the conditional decree, the High Court
    on 4th of May, 2006 directed "that the tenant shall deposit a
D
    sum of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand] by way of
    compensation in the trial court within a period of four months
    from the date of this judgment, for being paid to the landlord. If
    the tenant fails to deposit the amount within the stipulated period
    of four months, the trial court shall pass a decree for eviction
E   of the tenant/respondent under Clause (M) of Sub-section (1)
    of Section 12 of the Act. If the tenant deposits the amount within
    the specified period, the plaintiff's suit shall stand dismissed."    1
    The respondent-tenant had failed to deposit in the trial court the     '
    amount as aforesaid within the stipulated time mentioned in the
F   aforesaid order. On an application filed for extension of time
    to deposit the amount, as directed by the High Court on 4th
    May, 2006, the High Court directed an inquiry to be initiated
    whether one Smt. Durga, a maid servant of the decree holder
    had received a bank draft of Rs.10,000/- on behalf of the decree
G   holder tendered by the respondent and that whether she was
    retaining the same in view of the fact that the application it was
    alleged that the order of the High Court dated 4th of May, 2006
    was duly complied with as he had already deposited the bank
    draft of Rs.10,000/- with the same Smt. Durga, a maid servant
H   of the decree holder. The High Court directed the Executing
                           MANISHA LALWANI v. D.V. PAUL                  891
                             [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]

        l       Court to conduct an inquiry and examine the witnesses and A
                receive evidence to be adduced by the parties and then to
                submit a report to it.

                     4. We have heard Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned
                senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-decree
                                                                                 B
                holder and Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel for the
          J,    respondent and have also considered the conditional decree
            I
                and the application for extension of time and other materials
                on record. In our view, for the purpose of executing the decree,
....-
                whether money has been deposited or not, it was not necessary
                to hold an inquiry whether in fact Smt. Durga had received the
                                                                                 c
                bank draft or not because in the conditional decree of the High
                Court, it was made clear that such amount must be deposited
                in the trial court which was not done by the respondent. In this
        -_-.    view of the matter, we are of the view that there is no reason
                why the Executing Court shall not proceed with execution of the D
                decree passed on 4th of May, 2006, and accordingly, we direct
                the Executing Court to proceed with the execution case passed
                on 4th of May, 2006. However, it would be open to the Executing
                Court to proceed with the inquiry as directed by the High Court.
 _,                                                                              E
                     5. With these observations and or modification, these
                appeals are disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
         ~
        ,       B.B.B.                                 Appeals disposed of.