Dismissed

Bhagwan Das and Another v. Union of India and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2018WRIC/36379/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court dismissed the challenge filed by unauthorized occupants of sub-let shop premises leased to the Cantonment Board, Agra. The court held that it could not issue a writ of mandamus as relief sought was contrary to the lease deed, and rights between parties were under adjudication by a competent court under the Public Premises Act.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bhagwan Das and Another Vs Union of India and 2 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36379 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhagwan Das And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Chandra Bhan Gupta,Raj Kumari Devi

¶4

Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R.K.R.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3 as well as Sri Ashish Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Raj Kumari Devi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1.

¶6

A lease was executed between the Cantonment Board, Agra and one Kundan Lal, who is the petitioner no.2 in the instant writ petition.

¶7

On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel and the record before this court, the certain facts are admitted and established beyond the pale of dispute. Admitted case of the petitioners is that the said Kundan Lal further sub let the shop premises to petitioner no.1. The subletting of the shop premises was in violation of the lease agreement between the Cantonment Board, Agra and petitioner no.2-Kundan Lal.

¶8

It appears that after the shop was sub-let, the petitioner no.1 made unauthorized constructions by erecting basement in the premises. A notice was issued to the said Kundan Lal-petitioner no.2 on 9.5.2018 to demolish the illegal constructions.

¶9

The petitioners have admittedly violated the terms of the lease deed. The petitioner no.1 has no legal standing in the entire arrangement, as the lease deed subsisted between the Cantonment Board and petitioner no.2.The shop is being run by petitioner no.1, who does not have any legal authority to be in the premises.

¶10

The submission of Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 is that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants since the lease deed in their favour has expired. The proceedings against the petitioner no.1 has been instituted under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.

¶11

In the light of the aforesaid fact, this court cannot issue a mandamus to provide relief, which is contrary to the terms of the lease. Further the rights inter-se the parties are under adjudication before the competent court and any interference at this stage will prejudice the adjudication.

¶12

There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 14.11.2018

¶14

SKM

¶15

(Ajay Bhanot,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.)

Bhagwan Das and Another v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bhagwan Das and Another v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vishwanath Associates Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Girja Hari Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs the General Manager Food Corporation of India and 6 Others

Chhabi Nath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Dept of Urban Land Ceiling and Others

Vipul Enterprises Vs Director Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti U P and 3 Others

Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Deepa Erasmus Vs State of U P and 2 Others