PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for plaintiff, opposite party No. 1.
(2.) BY means of the present revision, the applicant who is defendant in S.C.C. Suit No. 10 of 2002 has challenged the order dated 26th August, 2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura whereby the court below has asked the defendant tenant to pay the damages for use and occupation of the disputed premises at the rate of Rs.3000/ - per month with effect from the date of order. The said rate of damages have been fixed taking into consideration that the rate of rent was Rs.2000/ - per month. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the defendant is a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.600/ -. It is being disputed by the plaintiff opposite party herein. What is the rate of rent between the parties is the subject matter of decision in the suit itself and at this stage it is not proper for this Court to express any opinion. The said issue shall be heard and decided on the basis of the available material on record.
(3.) SO far as, fixing of pendente lite and future damages at Rs. 3000/ - per month is concerned, obviously the court below was not justified. The suit is yet to be decided. Shri D.K. Tripathi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, agreed that the said order may be modified by providing that that the tenant would be liable to pay the damages at agreed rent. The order is? therefore, modified to the extent that the defendant tenant may deposit the damages at Rs. 2000/ - per month. However, this order will not come in the way of Court below, if the Court below on the basis of material available before it, comes to the conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs.600/ - per month, as was claimed by the tenant.;