Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. GIRISH CHANDRA JAIN versus SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. Girish Chandra Jain v. Smt. Shanti Devi And Another - WRIT - A No. 39969 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12369 (27 July 2006)

 

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. 39969 of 2005

Dr. Girish Chandra Jain      versus           Smt. Shanti Devi and another

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

             Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

     The petitioner is tenant of Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Sahkoor Jain, respondent no.1. He runs his clinic in a shop of the landlady since 1979 on monthly rent of Rs.200/- per month.

    A release application dated 24.11.98 was filed by Smt. Shanti Devi on ground that she needed the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner for her own business. The petitioner filed amendment application to the effect that as the landlady could have started business in another shop no. 5 which had been vacated but it had been let out on rent to Sri Sarafraj Ahmad son of Sri Sitar Ahmad. As the application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority, hence the petitioner preferred writ petition no. 13576 of 2006 which was decided vide order dated 9.3.2006. The petitioner thereafter filed another application no. 75-C2 along with copy of the order of the Court in the aforesaid writ petition, which has been rejected allegedly without considering the amendment application as evidence.

              Aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the same by means of this writ petition.

     From the record it appears that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to lead evidence but he did not lead any evidence and the right to lead evidence thereafter was closed by the Court below. He then moved a restoration application which was allowed on payment of Rs.100/- as cost but again he did not lead any evidence and his right to lead evidence was again closed by the Court. The petitioner again moved an application before the Court for permitting him to lead evidence which was also allowed on payment of cost of Rs.200/- giving him a last opportunity to lead evidence yet  again he did not lead any evidence in support of his case, as such  he was restrained for giving evidence. The petitioner then again moved an application dated 21.5.2005 which was allowed on payment of Rs.50/- as cost but instead of leading evidence he kept on taking adjournments, hence his evidence was again closed by the Court on 1.10.2005.

Thereafter the petitioner moved an application no. 58A/1 dated 19.10.2005 for amendment in his plaint. The Court held that the amendment which is now being sought should have been moved after the evidence of the respondents had been closed and that it has been moved only to delay decision in this case. The relevant portion of the order is as under:-

^^fnukad 7-10-2005 dks foi{kh dh lk{; dk volj lekIr dj fn;k x;k vkSj cgl lquus ds i'pkr fu.kZ; gsrq frfFk fu;r gks x;hA foi{kh us iwoZ fu;r frfFk dks izkFkZuki=k tuin U;k;k/kh'k ds U;k;ky; esa fjohtu @ vihy izLrqr djds LVs ykus gsrq le; fn;s tkus ds fy;s izLrqr fd;k Fkk] vkSj vkt rd foi{kh us dksbZ fjohtu@ vihy izLrqr ugha dh gSA okn fnukad 20-10-05 dks fu.kZ; gsrq fu;r gks x;h gSA foi{kh us fu.kZ dh frfFk dks Vkyus gsrq nqHkkZouk o'k ;g la'kks/ku izkFkZuki=k izLrqr fd;k gSA ;g rF; izfrokn i=k esa igys D;ksa ugha fy;k x;s gSA ;fn rFkkdfFkr rF; lClhDos.V bZos.Vl Hkh ekus tk; rks fof/kvuqlkj fcuk la'kks/ku ds Hkh muds lecU/k esa lk{; izLrqr dh tk ldrh Fkh ftlds lEcU/k esa lk{; dk volj igys gh lekIr fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% izkFkZuki=k ckckr la'kks/ku [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls ,-,y-vkj-2002 ¼46½ ist 134 bykgkckn gkbZdksVZ dh fof/kO;oLFkk izLrqr dh x;h gSA rFkk izkFkhZ 'kkUrh nsoh dh vksj ls 2004 ¼2½ ,-vkj-lh- ist 254 dh fof/k O;oLFkk izLrqr dh x;h gSA

vkns'k 6 fu;e 17 O;ogkj lafgrk ds ijUrqd esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd la'kks/ku ds fy, vkosnu fopkj.k ds 'kq: gks tkus ds i'pkr vuqKkr ugha fd;k tk ldrk tc og lE;d rRijrk ds ckotwn U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igqap tkrk gS fd i{kdj fopkj.k esa iwoZ ekyk ugha >wBk ldrs FksA 2004 ¼2½ ,-vkj-lh-254 esa Hkh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk blh izdkj dh fof/k O;oLFkk nh x;h gSA i=kkoyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd fnukad 3-9-93 dks oknh dh lk{; lekIr gks tkus ds ckn i=kkoyh cgl esa fu;r dh x;hA rnqijkar foi{kh dks 100@& :i;s gtZs ij le; fn;k x;kA vkSj fnukad 10-12-04 dks iqu% foi{kh dh lk{; dk volj lekIr fd;k x;k ftls fnukad 17-12-04 dks fjyhQ djrs gq;s 200@& :i;s gtsZ ij Lohdkj fd;k x;k rFkk bl vkns'k esa ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd mDr frfFk ij foi{kh leLr lk{; izLrqr djsa vU;Fkk ;g vkns'k Lor% @ fujLr le>k tk;sxkA fnukad 21-5-05 dks foi{kh }kjk iqu% LFkxu izkFkZuki=k nsus ij 50@& :i;s gtsZ ij rFkk iwoZ esa dk lEiw.kZ gtkZ vnk djus ij Lohdkj fd;k ijUrq foi{kh }kjk LFkxu gh fy;k tkrk jgk fdUrq dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha gS foi{kh dk lk{; dk volj 1-10-05 dks lekIr dj fn;k FkkA izkFkhZ @ foi{kh us izkFkZuki=k 58, @1 esa izLrj 8&3 ds :I esa fd;k rFkk dks tksM+uk pkgk dsoy rF; la'kks/ku izkFkZuk i=k ds vuqlkj ,d gsM dg iwoZl`ftr gq;s gS rFkk izLrj 8 c esa ftl rFkk dk la'kks/ku djuk ik;k x;k gS mudks 6 ekg iwoZ l`ftr gksuk dgk gSA fnukad 1-10-05 dks vafre :i ls foi{kh dh lk{; dk volj lekIr dj fn;k x;k gSA blls iwoZ izkFkhZ @ foi{kh }kjk rF;ksa ds la'kks/ku ds lEcU/k esa izkFkZuk i=k dks izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gS bldk dksbZ dkj.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA izLrj mlds }kjk ftl r; dks tksMuk pkgk gS ;g dqN fnuksa ls fLFkfr ifjorZu gksus dh fLFkfr ds djuk dgk gS ;g Li"V ugha fd;k gS blds fd fdrus le; iw.kZrF; l`ftr gqvk mlds vfrfjDr la'kks/ku izkFkZuki=k esa tks Hkh la'kks/ku pkgs x;s gS mudks foi{kh viuh lk{; esa Hkh mDr orhZ ifjofrZr gksus ds :i esa dFku dj ldrk Fkk blds fy;s izfrokn i=k esa mijksDr la'kks/ku vko';d ugha FkkA ijUrq foi{kh }kjk ,slk dqN Hkh ugha fd;k x;kA foi{kh us 2002 ¼46½ ds ,-,y-vkj ist 134 ls fof/k O;oLFkk izLrqr dh gSA U;k;ky; ds er esa mDr fof/k O;oLFkk orZeku ekeys dks rF; ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ykxw ugha gksrh gSA U;k;ky; ds er esa izkFkZuk i=k eqdnesa esa vuko'd foyEc dkfjr djus ds vkns'k ls fn;k x;k gSA fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks ;k fdlh Hkh I{kdkj dks fof/kd o fof/kO;oLFkkvksa ds foijhr U;kf;d izfdz;k foi{k djus dh vtkor ugha nh tk ldrhA U;k; mn~ns'; fof/k ea'kk foQy djus dhj btktr ugha nh tk ldrhA izkFkZuki=k [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i=kkoyh okLrs iqu% vafre cgl gsrq fnukad 9-12-05 ds le; 11-00 cts ,-,e-is'k gksA

                           g0 vLi"V

                       flfoy tt ¼twfu;j fMohtu ½

                             ,Vk A**

           

Thereafter the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13576 of 2006 before this Court which was disposed of by the following order vide order dated 9.3.2006.

         "  Heard counsel for the parties.

  Petitioner-tenant aggrieved by an order passed by the prescribed authority during the pendency of an application filed under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (in short the Act) wherein he sought amendment in his written statement, approached this Court by means of this writ petition.

     It is stated at the bar that the matter is fixed for final hearing on 20th March, 2006, in these circumstances, the view taken by the prescribed authority in rejecting the application that the amendment application is filed for the purpose of delaying the proceedings, can not be said to be erroneous on the face of record so as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

      In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the material already available on record in the form of amendment application may be considered as a piece of evidence on behalf of the petitioner.    

                                                      Hon.A.Kumar,J.

                                                          9.3.2006"                                                                                  

The petitioner has again moved an application for allowing him to submit oral and documentary evidence in support of the amendment application. The Court below has rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 18.7.2006. The order dated 18.7.2006 is as under:-

^^18-7-2006 i=kkoyh is'k gqbZA okLrs vkns'kkFkZfu;r gSA

i=kkoyh dk ifj'khyu fd;kA

izkFkZuki=k 75&x2 izfri{kh dh vksj ls ;g vfHkdfFkr djrs gq,s izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd izfrokni=k ds la'kks/ku gsrq izfri{kh }kjk la'kks/ku izkFkZuki=k izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA ftl U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 27-11-05 dks [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k Fkk] ftlds fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa fjV fiVh'ku izLrqr dh x;h FkhA tks fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 7-3-06 dks [kkfjt dj nh x;hA ysfdu la'kks/ku izkFkZuki= dh lk{; esa dalhMj djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA U;k; dh n`f"V ls izfri{kh dks viuh lk{; esa lHkh rF;ksa dh ckor 'iFki=k nkf[ky djus dk le; fn;k tkosA

bl ij okfnuh dh vksj ls vkifRr 78&x2 izLrqr djrs gq;s dgk x;k gS fd foi{kh dks lk{; dk volj fnukad 1-10-05 dks gh lekIr gks pqdk gSA ekuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fdlh Hkh vkns'k ds rgr foi{kh dks lk{; nsus dk volj ugha fn;kA izkFkZuki=k dsoy ckn dks vuko';d :i ls Vkyus ds fy, izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkZuki=k [kkfjt fd;k tkosA

nkSjku cgl izfroknh vf/koDrk }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd muds }kjk 'kiFki=k nkf[ky dj fn;k x;k gSA

i=kkoyh ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi miyC/k gS tks dkxt la[;k 77&x1 gSA esjs }kjk bl fu.kZ; dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk mDr vkns'k esa ;g dgk gS fd fjV fiVh'ku esa dksbZ cy ugha gS blfy, [kkfjt dh tkrh gS fQj Hkh ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd igys ls tks esVhfj;y la'kks/ku izkFkZuki=k ds :i esa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k gS mls fiVh'kuj dh lk{; ds :Ik esa dkUlhMj fd;k tk ldrk gSA U;k;ky; ds er esa mDr vkns'k esa la'kks/ku izkFkZuki=k dks gh lk{; ds :i esa dUlhMj fd;s tk ldus dk vkns'k gS fdlh lk{; dks nkf[ky djus dk dksbZ volj izfri{kh dks ugha fn;k x;k gS vr% U;k;ky; er esa izkFkZuki= ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds mDr vkns'k ds ifjizs{; esa Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% foi{kh us tks '''kiFki=k iwoZ esa bl izkFkZuki=k ds fuLrkj.k ls iwoZ esa dkxt la[;k 79&d ds :Ik esa nkf[ky fd;k gS og lk{; esa I<+s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA izkFkZuki=k [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA

 i=kkoyh oLrs cgl fnukad 22-7-06 dks is'k gksA

fnukad 18-7-06                         g0 v0

                               fu;r izkf/kdkjh@

                             flfoy tt ¼tw-fM-½ ,Vk**

   

         From the above it is apparent that the petitioner is only interested in delaying decision in the matter and all his efforts are to linger on with the dispute .He is passing time and is indulging in luxury litigation.

The petitioner may in the circumstances to retain shop on payment of Rs.5,000/-  per month as rent  and deposit at the same rate arrears of rent with 10% compound interest from the date of filing of release application by the landlord.

          As a consequence it is no longer necessary for directing the application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 to be decided by the court below.

          In the circumstances, the petitioner  will handover peaceful vacant possession to the respondent-landlord within a period of one month from today. In addition he shall also pay the landlord cost of litigation for about 8 years, which is assessed as Rs.20, 000/- within aforesaid period of one month from today. In case of default in payment of the aforesaid sum, the same shall be recovered within two months from today as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner and paid to the landlord thereafter.

          The counsel for the petitioner at this stage states that his client does not want to press this writ petition and the petition may be dismissed as not pressed. It is accordingly dismissed without liberty to file a fresh petition.

Dated 27.7.2006

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.