Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRADEEP PURI versus KEWAL KRISHNA PURI AND OTHES

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pradeep Puri v. Kewal Krishna Puri And Othes - WRIT - C No. 35274 of 2001 [2005] RD-AH 730 (14 March 2005)

 

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

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

This writ petition is directed against the impugned orders dated 30th March, 2001, contained in Annexure 10 to the writ petition, passed by the District Judge, Moradabad and dated 6.9.2000, contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition passed by Judge, Small Causes, Moradabad.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that Kewal Krishna Puri and Lalit Puri- respondent nos. 1 and 3 are real brothers and son of late Nanak Chand Puri. Sri Kapil Kumar Mehrotra- respondent no. 2 is brother-in-law of respondent no. 1.

Late Nanak Chand Puri, father of respondent nos. 1 and 3 was the original tenant of the western shop, who was carrying on the business of sale of utensils therefrom.  With the increase in business, partition wall between eastern and western shops was removed and a door was installed.  The eastern shop was also taken on rent.  Nanak Chand Puri died on 16.2.1981 and since then, the petitioner along with respondent no. 3 jointly alleged to be carrying business of sale of utensils from the eastern portion of the shop whereas the petitioner and respondent no. 1 are carrying the same business from the western portion of the shop in the name and style of ''M/s. Nanak Chand & Sons. After death of their father, the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 3, being his legal heirs allege to have become the tenants of both the shops and claim to be the tenants of eastern shop situated at Bartan Bazar, Shehi Masjid, Moradabad.  In 1994, the western shop was purchased by respondent no. 1 and in November, 1994, the eastern shop, in dispute, was also jointly purchased by respondent nos. 1 and 2. The dispute arose when respondent no. 2 tried to evict the petitioner and respondent no. 3 from the disputed shop.  Lalit Puri- respondent no. 3 filed Original Suit No. 214 of 1997- Lalit Puri v. Asmat Jahan and others for permanent injunction restraining the respondent nos. 1 and 2 from evicting and demolishing the shop in dispute.  Smt. Kiran Puri, wife of respondent no. 1 and Kapil Mehrotra- respondent no. 2 filed their joint written statement admitting that the petitioner is carrying on the business of sale of utensils from the western shop as well as from the disputed shop.  Kewal Krishna Puri- respondent no. 1 also filed his affidavit admitting that the petitioner is carrying on his business from the western shop as well as from the disputed shop.  Thereafter, respondent nos. 1 and 2 instituted Original Suit No. 892 of 1998.  In the said suit, the respondent no. 3 was arrayed as the sole opposite party.  

Respondent no. 3 contested the suit by filing his written statement on 9.2.2000 mentioning therein that the petitioner as a tenant is carrying on his business from the disputed shop but later on he lost interest in the litigation and he also tried to evict the petitioner from the disputed shop.  Initially, the petitioner claims to be ignorant of institution of suit no. 892 of 1992 and claims to know about the factum of institution of the said suit only on 19.8.2000.  He, then moved an application for his impleadment on 30.8.2000 to which respondent no. 1 filed objections.  The impleadment application of the petitioner was rejected by Judge, small Causes, Moradabad vide order dated 6.9.2000.  Revision filed by the petitioner against the said order too has been dismissed vide order of the District Judge, Moradabad dated 30.3.2000. Hence this petition.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the tenancy devolved upon all the legal heirs and representatives including the petitioner with regard to the shop in dispute on the death of original tenant and thus, every heir became the tenant.  The story of licence set up by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 is absolutely false and has to be decided in both the aforementioned suits after consideration of evidence to be led by the parties. The shop in dispute, was admittedly purchased by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on 16.11.1994 and the possession was never handed over by the petitioner-tenant.  In 1993, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were not owners of the disputed shop and therefore, there was no question of delivery of possession to them by the petitioner in 1993.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the subsequent owner gets the same rights and liabilities which the original owner had on the date of transfer and that being so, the petitioner along with Lalit Puri became tenants of respondent nos. 1 and 3 being subsequent owners, simply stepped into the shoes of transferee-landlord. It is stated that even respondent nos. 1 and 2 have not denied that the petitioner along with Lalit Puri is in occupation over the shop in dispute. According to counsel for the petitioner, the courts below have committed grave error of law in ignoring the crucial points, indicated above, and rejecting the impleadment application of the petitioner.

Counsel for the respondents submits that Smt. Ashmat Jahan executed a sale deed in favour of Kewal Krishna Puri in respect of the western shop on 7.10.1994 and she also executed a sale deed in favour of Kewal Krishna Puri and Kapil Mehrotra in respect of the eastern shop on 16.11.1994.  The eastern shop was originally under the tenancy of Nanak Chand Puri.  In the disputed eastern shop, the original tenant was carrying on business in the name and style of ''Maharani steels'.  The firm-'' ;Maharani Steels' was dissolved on 31.3.1993 and its tenancy rights were surrendered in favour of its then owner- Sri Abdul Rashid.  Fresh tenancy was thereafter created in facvour of Kewal Krishna Puri who continued to pay rent from 31.3.1993 to 16.11.1994 in his own name.  On 16.11.1994, the disputed eastern shop was purchased by Kewal Krishna Puri and Kapil Mehrotra and they enjoyed its possession in their exclusive rights being owners.  In 1995, the disputed eastern shop was handed over to Lalit Puri on licence on a clear undertaking that the possession of the shop shall be handed over to its owners, as and when required.

Original Suit no. 214 of 1997 was instituted by Lalit Puri on the ground that his eviction from the disputed shop be restrained.  The petitioner was not a party to that suit.  He relied upon the written statement of Kewal Krishna Puri in Original Suit no. 214 of 1977 wherein he clearly stated that the tenancy of the eastern shop, in dispute, originally vested in Nanak Chand Puri and after his death the tenancy rights devoved on all his three sons.  He further stated that from the eastern shop, the business in the name and style of ''Maharani Steel' is being carried on and the said firm was dissolved on 31.3.1993.  Therafter, all the joint tenants surrendered their tenancy rights and a new tenancy was created in favour of Kewal Krishna Puri.  Between 31.3.1993 and 16.11.1994, Kewal Krishna Puri continued to pay rent in his own name and on 16.11.1994, sale deed of the said property was executed in faovour of Kewal Krishna Puri and Kapil Mehrotra.

Original suit no. 882 of 1992 was filed for possession of the disputed eastern shop inter alia on the averments that it was given on licence to Lalit Puri and since it was required by the owners of the shop, he was liable to he evicted.  

The trial court rejected the impleadment application of the petitioner on a clear finding that there was no rent receipt or rent note on record to even remotely suggest that petitioner was the tenant of the disputed property. Even after the rejection of the impleadment application, the petitioner has not brought on record even an iota of evidence, to prove that he is tenant of the disputed property. The courts below have passed the impugned orders, rejecting the impleadment application of the petitioner after being satisfied that there is no material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner is tenant of the disputed shop.  The judgements impugned in the writ petition are just, apt and legally sound and no interference is called for by this court in the writ jurisdiction.  The writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

For the reasons stated above, no interference is required in the order of the court below. The writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.

Dated 14.3.2005

kkb


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.