Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI BABU GUPTA versus SANJEEV KUMAR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hari Babu Gupta v. Sanjeev Kumar And Others - WRIT - A No. 9672 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2963 (22 February 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. 1                                                        

           Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9672 of 2007

     Hari Babu Gupta               versus         Sanjeev Kumar and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

               Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

   Brief facts of the case are that respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed SCC suit no. 20 of 1988 before the Judge Small Causes Court, Etah against the petitioner's father late Sri Hazari Lal for arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground of subletting a portion to opposite party no.5.

    The petitioner's father contested the suit by filing his written statement denying the plaint allegations. During the pendency of the suit, the father of the petitioner died. The petitioner was substituted in his place as legal heirs and representatives and has filed his additional written statement.

   The petitioner made an application supported by his affidavit for amendment of his written statement, which according to him was necessitated on account of fall of rear portion of his tenement in the last rains for want of repairs.  

    Respondent no.3 filed his objection to the amendment application filed by the petitioner interalia that the amendment was not material to the controversy as to the arrears of rent and subletting and it was also belated, as the trial had started.

   The Judge Small Causes Court by order dated 27.9.2005 rejected the application for amendment as belated.

     Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.9.2005 the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 8 of 2006 before the Revisional Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 13.9.2006, hence this writ petition.

     The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lawfully sitting tenant, hence he is entitled to all the protections made available to the tenants under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 till he remains in occupation of the premises; that till date no Court has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is in arrears of rent and has sublet the premises in dispute, as such his rights as a tenant under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 may be protected.

The counsel for the petitioner further submits that it was open to the petitioner to take independent proceedings against the respondents in the same Court for restoration of amenities denied to him by his own neglect in effecting repairs resulting in falling down of the rear portion only in the last rains as such the amendment sought was neither belated nor foreign to the matter with which the court was seized inasmuch as it was necessary to prevent the multiplicity of suit or proceedings between the same parties and that even as per amendment of the year 2002 in the  Code of Civil Procedure the belated amendment is to be allowed if it is necessary to prevent the multiplicity of suit or proceedings where on the cause subsequently arising independent proceedings could have been initiated.

   It is lastly submitted that since the tenant is entitled to protection under Section 28 of the Act the same may be afforded to him even where the pending litigation between the same parties are at issue differently on other issues.

    The counsel for the respondents submits that the amendment application was filed before the Court below for delaying the proceedings; that there was no need for the petitioner to move amendment application; and that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. He further submits that since the petitioner has come against an interlocutory order, the writ petition is not maintainable.

The relevant findings of the Revisional Court are as under:-

^^voj U;k;ky; ds iz'uxr vkns'k fnukafdr 27&9&2005 ds voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd voj U;k;ky; us vius iz'uxr vkns'k esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd oknh us okn izfroknh x.k ds fo#} okor csn[kyh bl vk/kkj ij izLrqr fd;k gS fd izfroknh la[;k&1 us izfroknh la[;k&2 ds fcuk oknh dh vuqefr ds fookfnr nwdku dks f'kdeh fdjk;snkj ds #Ik esa fdjk;s ij mBk fn;k A blds vfrfjDr izfroknh }kjk fdjk;k vnk;xh easa fMQkYV fd;k x;k gS A izfroknh us la'kks/ku izkFkZuki= ds ek/;e ls vius izfrokni= esa tks la'kks/ku pkgs gS] og bunksuksa rF;ksa ls vFkok muds fdlh #Ik esa izfrj{kk ls lEcfzU/kr ugha gS A bl okn esa ;g fofu'pr gksuk gS fd izfroknh la[;k&1 us izfroknh la[;k&2 dks f'kdeh fdjk;snkj ds #Ik esa fookfnr nwdku }kjk fdjk;k vnk;xh esa fMQkYV fd;k x;k gS A ;fn oknh viuk okn fl} djus esa lQy gks tkrk gS] rks bl dkj.k dskbZ foijhr izHkko ugha iM+rk gS fd fookfnr lEifRr dh dksbZ ejEer visf{kr Fkh] tks fd ugha djk;h x;h Fkh A vkns'k&6 fu;e&17 O;o0 iz0 la0 esa ;g Li"V #Ik ls mi&ofU/kr gS fd oLrqr% ,slk la'kks/ku fd;k tk,xk]tks Ik{kdkjksa ds chp okn xzLr okLrfod iz'u ds vo/kkj.k ds iz;kstu ds fy, vko';d gks A la'kks/ku izkFkZuki= esa pkgk x;k la'kks/ku fdlh Hkh izdkj ds oknxzLr okLrfod iz'u ds vo/kkj.k ds fy, vko';d ugha gS A izkFkZuki= Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS vkSj izkFkZuk Ik= 96&x@2 fujLr fd;k gS A

       ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn us vius vfHkfu.kZ; jke izdk'k xqIrk cuke <kdu yky ¿1998�? ¿33�? ,0,y0vkj0 I`k"B  la[;k&260 esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd okn ds mfpr fuLrkj.k dk la'kks/ku okn ds fdlh Hkh Lrj ij Lohdkj fd;k tk ldrk gS A U;k;ky; dks ;g ugha ns[kuk gS fd tks la'kks/ku djk;k tk jgk gS] mlls izkFkhZ dks dksbZ ykHk gksxk] vFkok ugha A bl lEcU/k esa U;k;ky; dks fopkj ugha djuk pkfg, A

                    ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius vfHkfu.kZ; j?kq fryd Mh& tkWu cuke ,l0 jbiIiu vkfn ¿2001�? ¿42�? ,0,y0vkj I`k"B la[;k&542 esa ;g izfrikfnr  fd;k gS okn ds nkSjku tks Ik'pkrorhZ  MsoyesUV gksrs gS] muds lEcU/k esa la'kks/ku djkus ds fo"k; esa rduhdh n`f"Vdks.k ugha viuk;k  tkuk pkfg, A oknksa dh okgqY;rk dks jksdus ds fy, la'kks/ku izkFkZuki= Lohdkj fd;s tkus pkfg, A

      izR;FkhZ la[;k&1 o 2 ds fon~oku vf/koDrk us O;o0 iz0 la0ds vkns'k&6 fu;e&17 esa la'kks/ku ds vk/kkj ij ;g rdZ fd;k gS fd la'kks/ku gsrq dksbZ vkosnu fopkj.k ds vkjEHk gksus ds okn Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk,xk] tc rd fd U;k;ky; fu"d"kZ ij u igqWps  fd lEHkkfor deZ&fu"Brk ds ckotwn Ik{kdkj fopkj.k ds vkjEHk ds iwoZ ekeyssa dks ugha mBk lds Fks A  fon~oku vf/koDrk uss ;g Hkh rdZ fd;k gS fd iquZjh{k.kkFkhZ ds fo}oku vf/koDrk us tks vfHkfu.kZ; izLrqr fd;s gS] os vfHk&fu.kZ; O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk  ¿ la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e�? ¿2002�? ls djk;s x;s  la'kks/ku ds iwoZ ds gS A blfy, bu vfHkfu.kZ;ksa dk ykHk iquZjh{k.kkFkhZ izkIr ugha dj ldrk gS A izR;Fkh la[;k&1 o 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ ekuus ;ksX; gS A ;fn fookfnr nwdku ds fiNys [ku dh Nr cjlkr esa /koLr gks x;h ;k ugha gq;h] rks bl lEcU/k esa djk;s tk jgs la'kks/ku ls fdlh Hkh Ik{k dks dksbZ ykHk izkIr ugha gksuk gS A blfy, ;fn bl okn ds nkSjku /koLr Hkh gks x;h gS] rks blls okn ok izfrokn ij dksbZ Hkh izHkko fdlh izdkj dk ugha iM+rk gS A voj U;k;ky; us vius vkns'k esa ;g lgh mYys[k fd;k gS fd izLrqr okn esa fofu'pr gksuk gS fd izfroknh la[;k&1 us izfroknh la[;k&2 dks fooknxzLr nqdku f'kdeh fdjk;snkj ds #Ik esa mBk;h gS] vFkok ugha vkSj D;k iqujh{k.kdrkZ us fdjk;k vnk;xh esa fMQkYV fd;k gS] vFkok ugha A ;fn oknh viuk okn fl) djus esa lQy gks tkrk gS] rks bl dkj.k dksbZ foijhr izHkkougha iM+rk gS A fookfnr lEifRr dh dksbZ ejEer visf{kr Fkh] tks fd ugha djk;h x;h gSA O;o0 iz0 la0 ds vkns'k&6 fu;e&17  esa ;g LIk"V #Ik ls mYys[k gS fd dsoy ,slk la'kks/ku Lohdkj fd;k tk,xk] tks fd Ik{kdkjksa ds chp fookn&xzLr okLrfod iz'u ds vo/kkj.k ds iz;kstu ds fy, vko';d gksA ekuuh; mPPkre U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds mij of.kZr fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr dk lknj lEeku djrs gqa, ;g mYys[k fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh us izfroknh x.k ds fo#) okn Ok"kZ &1988 esa nk;j fd;k Fkk] vkSj rc ls okn fopkjk/khu gS A izfroknh us la'kks/ku izkFkZuki= o"kZ&2004 esa fnukad 9&7&2004 dks fn;k gS] tks fd vR;Ur foyEc ls fn;k x;k gS A voj U;k;ky; us iqujh{k.kkFkhZ us izkFkZuki= o ml ij izLrqr vkifRr;ksa rFkk fof/kd fLFkfr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, iz'uxr vkns'k fnukad& 27&9&2005 ikfjr fd;k gS A bl vkns'k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh voS/kkfudrk o =qfV ugha gS A voj U;k;ky; us vius esa fufgr {ks=kf/kdkj dk lgh iz;ksx fd;k gS A vr% ;g iqujh{k.k Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS A

                           

                                     vkns'k

       iqujh{k.k fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A voj U;k;ky; dh Ik=koyh vfoyEc okifl Hksth tk, A mHk; Ik{k fnukad 27&9&2006 dks voj U;k;ky; dsle{k mifLFkr gksa A

       okn dkQh iqjkuk gS A vr% voj U;k;ky; dks fufnZ"V fd;k tkrk gS fd og okn dk fuLrkj.k tYn ls tYn djsa A

                                                                        g0 vLi"V

                                   ¿ nhukukFk&1�?

                                  fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k

                             vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr¿ m0fu0�?

                             vf/kfu;e@vij tuin U;k;k/kh'k

                                     ,Vk A

                                    13&9&2006 ^^

From perusal of the findings of the Revisional Court it appears that the petitioner had sublet the rear portion of the house in dispute and if the amendment is allowed it would change the nature of the suit. The amendment sought by the petitioner is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy between the parties. The Courts below have rightly held that the ingredients of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. are not satisfied. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the Court below and the writ petition is liable to the dismissed. The writ petition has been filed against an interlocutory order. The case has not been decided finally.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 22.2.2007

CPP/-

             

 


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.