Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KRISHNA KUMAR BHARGAV versus U.P.SUGAR FEDERATION & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Krishna Kumar Bhargav v. U.P.Sugar Federation & Others - WRIT - C No. 31700 of 1992 [2006] RD-AH 3924 (20 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31700 of 1992

Krishna Kumar Bhargava Versus Uttar Pradesh Sugar  Federation & others

***

Hon. R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon. (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.

By means of the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1, namely, Uttar Pradesh Sugar Federation, English Wine and Country Liquor, Allahabad Unit, Allahabad, to hand over immediately the possession of shop No.  15, situated at Mahatma Gandhi Marg, opposite  Palace Cinema Hall, Allahabad to the petitioner forthwith and  further to pay the rent for the month of  August 1992 and the rent for the period till the possession of the shop in question is handed over to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month.

Briefly the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:

According to the petitioner he is the owner/licensee of the shop situate at 15, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, opposite Palace Cinema Hall, Allahabad. He had entered into a partnership deed with one Smt. Manjit Kaur, respondent no. 5. The respondent no. 5, held a licence for retail vend of Indian made foreign liquor and according to the petitioner he was partner to the extent of 1%. The title and ownership of the aforesaid shop remained with the petitioner and the firm was entitled to carry on the liquor business at the said shop. During the excise year 1992-93, licence for retail vend of Indian made foreign liquor, was issued in the name of the respondent no. 1. The petitioner gave his shop on rent at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month to the respondent no. 1 with effect from 1.5.1992 till 31.3.1993. The respondent no. 1 paid rent uptill the period of July 1992 and from August 1992 it stopped the payment of the rent to the petitioner. As the respondent no 1 was a State Government Undertaking the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 97602 of 1988 on 8.9.1988 for the relief made herein above. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

We have heard Sri Krishna Kumar Bhargava, who had appeared in person and the learned Standing Counsel, who represents the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and have perused the writ petition, its annexures, counter affidavit, supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavit which have been filed on the record of the writ petition.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner/licensee of the shop in question. In fact, from Annexure SCA-1 filed along with the supplementary counter affidavit of Sri Daya Shanker Sharma, District Excise Officer, Allahabad, affirmed on 27.11.1996 which is a copy of the application dated 10.4.1996 filed by one Mauji Lal who was granted licence for the year 1996-97 for retail vend of Indian made foreign liquor for Sector no. 3 at Allahabad, we find  that in respect of the shop appearing at serial no. 3, this shop which is known as Civil Lines shop  no. 3, has been mentioned in the name of Sri  T.K. Bhargava since expired who is the brother  of the present  petitioner K.K. Bhargava. In the supplementary affidavit filed by Sri J.P.Gupta, Legal Consultant, U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd.  Lucknow which is the apex body of the respondent no. 1 and was given the task of running the country liquor and foreign liquor shop at Allahabad during the year 1992-93 by order of the excise authorities. In paragraphs 10,11 and 12 of the supplementary affidavit it has been stated as follows:

"10.That the applicant had also paid the rent for the period of three       months at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month to the petitioner.

11. That however a dispute arose subsequently between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, both of them started claiming the rent and the applicant could not understand as to who is entitled to receive the rent hence no rent could be paid thereafter.

12.Tht the applicant is ready to deposit the rent of the shop but due to dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 5, the petitioner could not deposit the balance rent as the writ petition is pending before this Hon'ble Court, as such the applicant could not  clear the  outstanding rent of the  shop in question."

Thus the answering respondents also admits that it had paid the rent at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month for three months to the petitioner and as there was some dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 of the shop in question it had stopped paying rent. However it is ready to pay the rent of the shop. In view of the clear admission of the respondent no. 1 and on the finding as is evident  on material on the record that the petitioner is owner of the shop there is no justification for not paying  the rent to the petitioner.

The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month to the petitioner for the period from August 1992 till March 1993 for 8 months within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the respondent no. 1 or the apex body, i.e. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd.  Lucknow. As the petitioner has retained the amount of the rent for a long period of more than 13 years, we direct the respondent no. 1 to pay simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the said amount also. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost.

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

D/-20 2.2006

Mahmood


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.