Disposed

Shri Karandeep Singh v. Mohit Maheshwari and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 May 2018A227/3360/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court upheld stay of eviction for six months pending disposal of Rent Revision by Revisional Court, requiring tenant to deposit monthly rent to landlord with court ensuring payment immediately thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Stay of eviction for six months contingent on monthly rent deposit of Rs. 5000 with Revisional Court for forwarding to landlord; direction to Revisional Court to dispose within six months.

Shri Karandeep Singh Vs Mohit Maheshwari and 3 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3360 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shri Karandeep Singh Respondent :- Mohit Maheshwari And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shreya Gupta,Ravi Anand Agarwal

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶4

Oral

¶5

This petition has been filed praying for staying of the execution of Form-C issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer / Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar until the disposal of Rent Revision No. 28 of 2017 and alternatively for issuance of a direction to the learned Revisional Court to consider the petitioner stay application forthwithh and in the meantime this Court may direct stay of further proceedings of Execution Case No. 29 of 2017.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the landlord had filed an application under Section 12 for declaration of vacancy which was allowed on 11.3.2016 and an application under Section 16 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the premises in his favour which was allowed on 29.5.2017 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Both these applications were considered without the tenant putting in appearance and the orders passed were ex-parte.

¶7

Aggrieved by these ex-parte orders, the tenant filed a Revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 13.7.2017. This Revision was entertained / admitted by the learned Revisional Court on 30.10.2017, but the Revisional Court did not pass any order on the stay application dated

¶8

13.7.2017 preferred along with the said Revision. Thereafter, as many as eight dates were fixed in Rent Revision No. 28 of 2017 for a period of six months, notices were repeatedly issued to the respondent / landlord, but the landlord failed to put in appearance.

¶9

In the meantime, the landlord had filed Execution Case No. 29 of 2017 which was proceeding at fast pace, and therefore on 12.1.2018 and again on 24.4.2018, the petitioner moved applications bearing paper nos. 33-C and 34-C respectively before the learned Revisional Court praying for an early disposal of the stay application filed along with the memo of Revision, and also praying for stay of the execution proceedings in the meantime. No orders were passed on such application, but only dates were fixed after issuing notice on the respondent.

¶10

Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Chand Yadav & another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited Rampur & others 1982 (3) SCC 484 and has read out paragraph 4 thereof wherein the Court was considering the issue of non grant of an interim staying the operation of the impugned order during the pendecy of the statutory Appeal.

¶11

The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "----------- a Court's order cannot be flouted and even a covert disrespect to Court's order cannot be tolerated. However, if orders are challenged and the Appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging pendulum continuously taking

¶12

place during the pendency of the Appeal ----------. Judicial approaches requires that during the pendency of the Appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. More so when the Appeal is admitted ----------".

¶13

Relying upon such order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court also in Om Prakash Jalan Vs. Smt. Manju Devi & others 2008 (1) ARC 529 has made several observations where Rent Revision was admitted against an order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring vacancy and the stay application was rejected while keeping the Revision pending.

¶14

This Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the learned Revisional Court to decide the Rent Revision within a period of three months and until the decision of the Revision a direction was issued that the petitioner would not be evicted, provided that w.e.f. September 2007 onwards by the 7th of each month, the tenant deposited before the Revisional Court rent / damages for use and occupation of the property at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month and the Revisional Court ensured immediate payment to the landlord / respondent.

¶15

Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in this case although the stay application has not been rejected outright, but the refusal to pass any order on the stay application for the past several dates by the Revisional Court while admitting a Revision and the fact. Form-C had already been issued by the Executing Court

¶16

brought to its notice through application no. 34-C, it amounted to refusal of grant of stay.

¶17

The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner carries substance. This Court therefore directs the Revisional Court to make every effort to decide the Revision as expeditiously as possible say within a period of six months. Since, in this case the respondent / landlord has not appeared till date before the Revisional Court, the Revisional Court may direct service through publication and after documentary evidence is filed, pass appropriate orders on substituted service.

¶18

For a period of six months, the petitioner / revisionist / tenant shall not be evicted from the property in question subject to the tenant paying rent at the rate of Rs. 5000/per month within seven days from the date of its accrual each month to the landlord as rent / damages for occupation of the property in question during the pendency of the Revision.

¶19

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.5.2018 Arif

Shri Karandeep Singh v. Mohit Maheshwari and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Karandeep Singh v. Mohit Maheshwari and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukteshwar Tiwari Vs XVIth Additional District Judge,Kanpur Nagar and Another

Bilal Ahmad Vs Additional Civil Judge and Another

Shobhit Kapoor Vs Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and 2 Others

Deepak Verma Vs Pramod Kumar Goyel and 2 Others

Riyaz Ali Vs Additional City Magistrate II and Another

M/S Superhouse Leather Ltd. Vs Waqt S. Ahmadhasan -44 Ex. Ii, Kanpur