High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kailash Chand v. Prescribed Authority, Mathura/Civil Judge And Others - WRIT - A No. 5548 of 2006  RD-AH 5248 (6 March 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5548 of 2006
Kailash Chand Vs. Prescribed authority/Civil Judge, Mathura and others
Against Bal Kishan, the tenant release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was filed by Mohan Lal, Radhey and Bhura sons of Phool Chand being P.A. case no.51 of 2000. Release application was allowed by Prescribed authority/Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.2, Mathura on 24.7.2001. Appeal filed against the same was also dismissed. Bal Kishan filed writ petition no.6868 of 2003 which was dismissed by me on 3.2.2005. However, legal representatives of Bal Kishan who had been substituted at his place after his death in the said writ petition were granted one year's time on filing undertaking. One year's time expired on 3.2.2006. It is not clear as to whether legal representative of Bal Kishan the original tenant have vacated the premises or not. Chances are that still the said building has not been vacated.
This writ petition has been filed by Kailash Chand claiming to be owner-landlord of the premises in which Bal Kishan was tenant. According to the petitioner he has filed some suit (O.S. No.81 of 2005) for declaration on the basis of Will alleged to have been executed by Smt. Omwati on 5.7.2004 in his favour. According to the petitioner Phool Chand had executed a Will of the property in dispute in favour of Omwati who was his third wife.
The prayer in this writ petition is that earlier judgment and order dated 3.2.2005 passed in writ petition no.6868 of 2003 may be recalled and modified and for writ of mandamus directing respondent no.1 i.e. Prescribed authority not to handover the property in dispute to respondents nos. 2,3 and 4 Mohan Lal, Radhey and Bhura and for a direction to Civil Judge (SD), Mathura to decide Suit no.81 of 2005 filed by the petitioner at the earliest. I am fully convinced that this writ petition has in-fact been got filed by the tenant i.e. legal representatives of Bal Kishan. Even after grant of one year's time they have not vacated the premises in dispute. They have been shown to be respondents 5,6 and 7 in this writ petition. Earlier judgment of the High Court cannot be challenged through another writ petition. As release application has been allowed in favour of Mohan Lal, Radhey and Bhura hence there is no question of directing that possession shall not be delivered to them.
This writ petition is utter abuse of the process of court hence it is dismissed. It is further directed that with effect from 4.2.2006 i.e. after expiry of one year's period granted to the tenants to vacate in the earlier writ petition, tenant shall be liable to pay damages to landlords-respondents 2, 3 and 4 Mohan Lal, Radhey and Bhura at the rate of Rs.150 per day till actual vacation.
Let a copy of this order be sent to Prescribed authority/Civil Judge (S.D.) Ist, Mathura for being placed on the file of Prescribed authority- case no.51 of 20000 decided on 27.4.2001.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.