BRIJ BEHARI MISRA versus THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND ANOTHER

BRIJ BEHARI MISRA versus THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Brij Behari Misra v. The Prescribed Authority/Addl.Civil Judge And Another - WRIT - A No. 29907 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11567 (10 July 2007)

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. 7

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29907 of 2007

Sri Behari Mishra Petitioner

Vs.

The Prescribed Authority/ IIndAdditional Civil Judge,

(SD) Kanpur Nagar and another. Respondents

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 22.3.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority/ IIndAdditional Civil Judge, (SD) Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 18 of 1996, Rajendra Kumar Nigam Vs. Arjun Lal.

Brief facts of the case are that Respondent no.2 claiming himself to be the landlord of the disputed accommodation filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar against one Arjun Lal Sharma, the alleged tenant in house no. 111/95,Ashok Nagar, Kanpur Nagar for release of the tenanted portion consisting of one room and kitchen which was registered as Rent Case No. 18 of 1996 Rajendra Kumar Nigam Vs.Arjun Lal Sharma. The aforesaid Rent Case was allowed exparte vide order dated 11.3.99.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11.3.99 the petitioner filed Rent Appeal No. 47 of 2000. The appeal was admitted and the operation of the order dated 11.3.99 was stayed. Then respondent no.2 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35289 of 2000 which was dismissed vide order dated 18.4.2001 with the direction to the Appellate Authority to decide Rent Appeal No. 47 of 2000 within a period of 30 days from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 18.4.2001 of this Court, the Appellate Authority decided the aforesaid rent appeal vide order dated 31.5.2001 remanding Rent Case No. 18 of 1996 for fresh decision by the Prescribed Authority concerned.

It is alleged that respondent no.2 again filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30836 of 2001 Rajendra Kumar Nigam Vs. Additional District Judge, VI Kanpur Nagar and others which was disposed of vide order dated 30.8.2006 directing the Prescribed Authority that before deciding the aforesaid rent case finally he will decide the following questions on the basis of evidence led by the parties within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

1.Whether respondent no.2 is tenant of the petitioner, if no the order on the release application will be complied with?

2.Who inducted respondent no.2 in the accommodation in dispute and whether such person was duly authorized by the landlord for inducting respondent no.2 ?

3.To whom rent was paid by respondent no.2 i.e. to the petitioner-landlord or to some other person?

In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 30.8.2006 of this Court, the Additional Civil Judge ( SD), Court no.2, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 22.3.2007 decided the aforesaid questions holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents and the tenant had not paid the rent to the landlord. In the circumstanes, the Court below fixed 22.3.2007 for further orders. The relevant portion of the order dated 22.3.2007 is as under:-

^^ mijksDr foospuk ls i=koyh esa miyC/k 'kiFk i=ksa ,oa nLrkostks ls ek= ;g fu"d"kZ ij igqWpk tk ldrk gS fd czt fcgkjh edku uEcj 111@95 v'kksd uxj dkuiqj ds ,d Hkkx ds v/;klu esa gS ] ysfdu mijksDr ls ;g fu"d"kZ ugha fudyrk gS fd czt fcgkjh iz'uxr edku mijksDr ds fdjk;snkjh okys Hkkx] ftlesa vtqZu yky fdjk;snkj Fks] esa o"kZ 1976 ds iwoZ ls v/;klu esa gS A

;kph jktsUnz dqekj ,oa foi{kh czt fcgkjh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ ds izdk'k esa ,oa i=koyh esa miyC/k ,oa nLrkostksa ds vkyksd esa ,oa mHk; i{kksa }kjk izLrqr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fofHkUUk fof/k fl}kUrksa ds izdk'k esa ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd czt fcgkjh ;kph jktsUnz dqekj dk fdjk;snkj ugha gS] u gh yS.MykMZ mlds }kjk lE;d #i ls izkf/kd`r fdlh O;fDr }kjk mls fdjk;s ij iz'uxr Hkkx fn;k x;k gS vkSj u gh iz'uxr fdjk;snkjh okys Hkkx ds lEcU/k esa mlds }kjk fdjk;k gh vnk fd;k x;k gS A i=koyh okLrs vfxze vkns'k fnukad&20&3&2007 dks is'k gks A^^

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 22.3.2007 the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.

From perusal of the record and the impugned order it appears that the Court below has rightly held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. The impugned order is interlocutory in nature. I am not inclined to interfere in an interlocutory order under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case has not yet been heard and decided finally. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated: 9.7.2007

CPP/

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

Case Details

Case Law Search

Judgement

Brij Behari Misra v. The Prescribed Authority/Addl.Civil Judge And Another - WRIT - A No. 29907 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11567 (10 July 2007)

Copyright

Advertisement