High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rakesh Kumar v. The A.D.J.And Ors. - WRIT - A No. 27698 of 1996  RD-AH 1920 (12 August 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27698 of 1996
Rakesh Kumar V. The Addl. District Judge, Binjor & others
Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.
This writ petition has been filed by Rakesh Kumar alleging himself to be a tenant of the premises in dispute and for quashing the judgment and order dated 24.8.90 and 15.5.96 passed in proceeding initiated on release application filed by respondent no.3 under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the application was decided in terms of the compromise in favour of the landlord and the appeal against the same filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
The dispute relates to a shop situate in Muhalla Mahajanan, Town and Pargana Kiratpur, district Bijnor. In the year 1979, Satyabrat father of respondent no.3 filed an application for release of the shop in dispute which was registered as P.A. Case No. 40 of 1979. This application was filed against the petitioner and his brothers. This application was dismissed on 1.8.1983 and the appeal against the same filed by Satyabrat was also dismissed on 2.7.1987. In the said proceedings, the defence taken by the tenant (petitioner) was that the shops in dispute were let out in the year 1930 to Sri Parmatma Saran (father of the petitioner) and his brother Harsaran. The shop was in possession and use of Harsaran. These facts are clearly born out from the judgment of the appellate authority dated 2.7.87 filed as Annexure-2 to the petition. The landlord thereafter filed another release application in respect of the shop, which was in the use and occupation of Harsaran which was registered as P.A, Case No. 14 of 1990. The said case was decided on the basis of the compromise vide order dated 24.8.1990 and pursuant thereto possession was also delivered to the landlord respondent no.3. Aggrieved by the compromise decree dated 24.8.90 the appellant filed a Misc. Appeal under section 22 of the Act which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 95 of 1990. In the said appeal only Ashok Kumar respondent no.3 was impleaded as respondent. Har Saran Das who was defendant in the proceedings had not been impleaded in the appeal. The appellate authority vide judgment dated 15.5.96 dismissed the appeal holding that it was not maintainable as Har Saran Das was not impleaded. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed. Even in the petition Harsaran Das has not been made a party.
I have heard Sri Deo Raj learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared for the respondent even though the case has been taken in the revised list.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged that the release application had been wrongly allowed in favour of the landlord respondent no.3 without recording any finding as to whether the landlord had genuine and pressing need. The petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality either in the compromise or in the appellate order. There is no explanation as to why Harsaran Das who was defendant in the proceeding before the Prescribed Authority, and had been a party in the compromise, which was under challenge in the appeal, had not been made a party in the appeal. In the absence of any explanation for non impleadment of Harsaran Das the appeal has been rightly dismissed. Further there is no bar under law for landlord and tenant to enter into compromise in proceeding under section 21(1) of the Act. This petition also suffers from the same fatal defect of non impleadment of Harsaran Das defendant in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority.
In the result both the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner fails.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.