Jute Corpn. Of India Ltd. And Another v. Santosh Kr. Choraria And ANR

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA CRPNo.108of2012 1.
JuteCorporationofIndiaLtd.,






 
  
         



 !"# 2.
TheRegionalManager, $ 

 % &

 ' (   )%%  (   (  *  "+

............Petitioners -Versus- 1.
ShriSantoshKumarChoraria, 2.
ShriBimalKumarChoraria, #,
  %   -  , ,

    




.  ............Respondents BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA /
, 
 :
,


*0  
+1 2
*0   /
,
 :
(,

*0   %,  0
 :02.04.2015 %$ 

  ",,
% %


 : YES NO √

 JUDGMENT&ORDER(ORAL) 3
 
  ,

 
  
 

   
 +1  2
 
   %
 ,  
 4 
(,


 %
,
 [2] +,    %  
 *
  55 % ,    % &

 ,   , 0    % , 

   6 65 5  0
  ( 7(0 8  9 % 5    ,
0  ,
  ,
 55%+

#   7'  (
8*6,1 
$"+

 *   [3] +, % , , 

%
,



 ,  ,
      
  57587 87

8%+

#  7'  (
8*6 ,
 %

%

   , ( 
 * %
 0  % ,  4
  %
%  

  %
   %     ,  
 ,
    
 , %  ,  4
  
    ,    
 +, ,

 555 ,(

 4 , 

, : "the opposite party shall pay arrear of rent of the proceeding premises to the  petitioner since April, 1989 upto 30.11.2005 at the rate of 4047/A per within2(two)monthsfromthedateofthisOrder, failingwhichtheoppositepartyshallhandoverthe vacant possession of the proceeding premises to the petitioners. Failure of the above condition by the tenantAO.P. the tenant O.P. is liable to be 

 evictedfromtheproceedingpremisesbyexecution ofthisorder." [4] +, 

 

 4  0
    ;  ,  
,
 *;,
%,
,


  < 
   (7=< 8>% 5 ? ,(

*%
< %  

 %
 ,   %
  %   % ,  <  
  ,  
 ,
  %    2  
   > % , -
  4 ,    % , +

 #   7'   ( 
8 * 6     % , - 

 , 

 < 
 %  ,
-
   2  4


  4 
 0 @ 7 8 ,  ,
      ,
4   ,  %, 


8, 
< 
 ,
, 
 0

%(!9>A 7= ,

,0 +,
, /
 08&    , , 
  % (>6A  7) 

, / %  /
 ,  ) ,
    )8  + < 1  
 7+1  ,
8 ,

  % , 

     % , 


,< 
 

 [5] 
,


 
 %
, 
%

%

%%  
   ,   , ,

  ! 5  , ( 
 
 7, 
 % ,   $ $
 1  *  "+

8
2, 2 , , : 



 "Whereanybonafidedoubtordisputearisesasto the person who is entitled to receive the rent for any building the tenant may deposit such rent before such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed and shall report to the Rent Control court the circumstances under which such deposit wasmadebyhim,andmaycontinuetodepositany rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building before the same authority andinthesamemanneruntilthedoubtisremoved or the dispute is settled by the decision of a competent Court or by a settlement between the parties or until the Rent Control Court makes an Order under clause(b) of SubASection (4)  as the casemaybe." [6] 
%

,
0 % 798%, (
*,< 
,  
0, , % ,2 
  


  ,
,  

%%
 0  , 

  ,  
 +,
 %
 , <  
  , 

   ! 5   ,   
0 , ,< 
   ,
 ,    
 , <        %,
,
, 



 , 
 ,
  , 
    ,
 4   , 
 %   , 

  2     




  , 2 


 >%,-, 
2*, 
% 
0 ,

  ! 5   ,  
%

 
0  
   55
  4 ,    % , ( 
 * %
 ,
0  ,
 ,1 
$ "+

*  # , 

 ,
0  ,     



 [7] ",  %%
  , %   % , <  
 ,
0   
 ,  %
,
  
0 ,  ,  
 ,  

,
 

,    %
 , , 
  ,
*,,
4 %  
 , 

   555  =0 ,  4   

 4,* 
,



<  , , %   
  % 0  , ( 
 
 [8] 
 ,

 
  
   %
 , 
, 
, 
4, ;  ,0   % 

 6 >5 5  ,
0  ,
, ,
,   ,% %,  % , ,
, 0
 0, 4, ,, 4
     
 % , 

   555   ,    
    % , 
 & , 

 , ,
%

  , 
0  % )

 BB& ( 5 % , -  ,  %,
,, 0 



,< 
/

%
%
,
0 % )

BB&(5%,- <
,

: 2. Payment out of Court to decreeAholder - (1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kindispaidoutofCourt,[oradecreeofanykindis otherwise adjusted] in whole or in part to the satisfactionofthedecreeAholder,thedecreeAholder shall certify such payment of adjustment to the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, and thecourtshallrecordthesameaccordingly. (2) The judgmentAdebtor [or any person who has become surety for the judgmentAdebtor] also may inform the Court of such payment or adjustment, 



 and apply to the Court to issue a notice to the decreeAholdertoshowcause, ona daytobefixed by the Court, why such payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified, and if, after service of such notice, the decreeAholder fails to showcausewhythepaymentoradjustmentshould notberecordedascertified,theCourtshallrecord thesameaccordingly. [(2A)Nopaymentoradjustmentshallberecorded attheinstanceofthejudgmentAdebtorunlessA (a)
the payment is made in the manner providedinrule1;or (b)
the payment or adjustment is proved by documentaryevidence;or (c)
thepaymentoradjustmentisadmittedby, or on behalf of, the decreeAholder in his reply to the notice given under subArule (2)ofrule1,orbeforetheCourt.] (3) A payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded as aforesaid, shall not be recognisedbyanyCourtexecutingthedecree. [9] 
 ( ,

 
   %
 ,
 ,   ,  ,
   %
  ,

 

   6 65 5 *
 ,  , ,     ,
4
0
 
, ,  
 %   %   /
  ,   %



 4     
    % , 
   555  %
,
, , 0

,%


  , , ,  ,
,+1", 

  %


 %
   
  
  , 2  
   , 

   ,   
 
  ,  % , 
 ,
  
   
 ,  , 
,   3, %
,
  , ,   ,   
0  
 )

 BB& ( 5   2  ( 



 5798 4, , 
0  ,    
 2 4, , ,   
 % 


 
,
0 %  5 57*8%(5%)

BB&
 
 @, 


2 4,  <  , 
 3 ,  %
,
    ,< 
   4, ,  
0 

,
 %+,< 
,  ,
  %%
 

,

<  %%
 
 & 
 % ,    
 ,

 
 

%
,
, 
   %, <


 Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Ors.,

  AIR 1970 SC 1475, 4,
 , < 
 , 

, 4 
: 6.ACourtexecutingadecreecannotgobehindthe decree between the parties or their representatives;itmusttakethedecree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. Untilitissetasidebyanappropriateproceedingin appealorrevision,adecreeevenifitbeerroneous isstillbindingbetweentheparties. [10] 3, %
,

%

 ,
 %, < 
  Rafique Bibi (D) by Lrs. vs. Sayed Waliuddin (D) by Lrs. and Ors.,

  AIR 2003 SC 3789, 4,
 , < 
, ,, : 6. What is 'void' has to be clearly understood. A decree can be said to be without jurisdiction,andhence a nullity,iftheCourtpassing the decree has usurped a jurisdiction which it did not have; a mere wrong exercise of jurisdiction doesnotresultinnullity.Thelackofjurisdictionin theCourtpassingthedecreemustbepatentonits faceinordertoenabletheexecutingCourttotake 



 cognizance of such nullity based on want of jurisdiction;elsethenormalrulethatanexecuting Courtcannotgobehindthedecreemustprevail. [11] 
 ( ,

 
   %
 ,
 ,     ,   ,      0 ,  
    ,  ,  % , (

   ,
+,
%
,< 
  4  ,
0   
 ,  

  , ,  , 
  <  ) ,  4,,
    % ,



   ,, ,
  <
  , 
 ,   C  
 2D , ,  %
,

%

  %,# 3 ,
 Smt.Savitribai A.Salvivs.Smt.SumanNavgire&Ors.,

 2009(4) AIRBomCR150,4,
 ,  ,, : Further objection was that the decree stipulated paymentofmoneyincourtwithinaprescribedtime and that condition has been complied with and, therefore,possessionwarrantcouldnothavebeen issued. Even this aspect has been gone into elaborately by the court below. The Courts below have adverted to the factual aspects and have pointed out that the amount was to be deposited withinthetimestipulated.However,thejudgment debtors deposited Rs.

 5100 by way of two installments but failed to deposit interest thereon as directed by the trial court. In the order passed by the executing court, it has observed that the deposit was not made within time. On the own showing of the petitioner, the amount directed to be deposited by the trial court was deposited in twoinstallmentsi.e.on9thJuly1999and20thJuly 1999.Thereisnodisputethattheamountwasnot deposited within the stipulated time. Hence, when the condition of deposit in the decree having not beencompliedwithadmittedly,theexecutingcourt could not have granted any benefit to the Petitioner/JudgementDebtor.Thereisnoquestion of the Executing Court extending the time for deposit.

 The Executing Court had to go by the decree and whenitfoundthattheconditionofdeposithasnot been complied with within the time stipulated, then,ithadnoalternativebuttogiveeffecttothe consequences of default and issue the warrant of possession. It rightly issued that and even the factualfinding againstthepetitioneronthiscount requiresnointerferenceinwritjurisdiction. [12] *%
 


 ,
   ,  ; , % %
 
%, 
 , 4,,
,  
 

  2 

,< 
  ,  


%,



 ,< 
  
 

E [13] +, < 
  State of Punjab & Others vs. MohinderSinghRandhawaandanother,

 AIR1992 SC473, ,, %,
 ,  , 


% ,   
   ,  %
 , 

 
 , % 
%
 ,< 



%,
    ;  0 < ,
% %,
%
  %2
 %, 
4, ,,  ,

<   3
    4,
  ,  4  ,
4 

 ,

 5 55  ,, 
  %


 % 

   %


 %
 4  
 % 5748,%
 555 ,  %
  4 % <  +, <  
 %     , 0 2
  ,%%  

 0
 ,
 ,
4 , 4, ,  
0  ,
 



 [14] +, %  ;  ,  ,  %  %
  
 ,


    4
",,
,   ,< 
 4 0, 
%
,

%0 E +, 
  

4 ,4, ,   
0 , #  3 , 
  Smt. Savitribai A. Salvi vs. Smt. Suman Navgire & Ors. ,  , <  
 4   <
 

 
 % 4
  
  <  %    
 
0   ,

 %


,


%


 
,
 % 0  , 0 % %


  

   %


%
4 ,  

 4, 0
 [15] 
%
)

BB&(5%,-, 
, , ,,   
)

BB&(5 % , -  <   ,   ,
  
   ,  , 
 ,


 ,    4  % 
 %  ,< 
 
 @  


2 , 0, %,< 
4   < , 
A

 %  %  ,  , 
A

 <  [16] ,, 
% %
 , 

 
  ,      340
,
,  

  )  
0  ,  ,  
  ,    ,
 %
;    , 
 



    
0
 

 ,  
  % , 4 ,  ,  ,    , 
  %
 ?7 <8 , %
   2 %


%
4 97,
8, %
 , ,   ,


%
  
 % ?7 <8 , F
  
  ,  
 ,   < /
 ,  
 , 4

 %       0 %%  +,
 %
 4 , 
%
  , 
 
  ,
 
  
    ,  4

 %   ,   <    % ,

   %%
  ,  
 ,  ,  
0


 4 ,, 4 ,%,
  JUDGE