Dismissed

Mehbubal Hasan v. Municipal Commissioner Nagar Nigam Moradabad and Another

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2019A227/2134/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order dismissing a challenge to an interim status quo order. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prima facie case as no rent was alleged to be reserved in the lease deed. Finding no manifest error, perversity, or ground for interference under Article 227, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merits as no manifest error or prima facie case was established.

Mehbubal Hasan Vs Municipal Commissioner Nagar Nigam… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2134 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mehbubal Hasan

¶4

Respondent :- Municipal Commissioner Nagar Nigam Moradabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Ojha,Kuldeep Singh Chauhan

¶5

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Rajesh Yadav learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Brijesh Ojha learned counsel for respondent.

¶7

By the present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 3.1.2019 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Civil Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2014 (Nagar Nigam Vs. Mehbubal Hasan and another) by which misc. appeal was allowed and order dated 16.01.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moradabad on application 6-C in Civil Suit No.171 of 2013 was set aside.

¶8

Learned counsel for plaintiff-petitioner submitted that he was allotted disputed property on a lease for a period of 90 years by Special Resolution No.5 dated 5.1.1992 by Nagar Palika which has now become Nagar Nigam and the rent of property was to be enhanced by 50% on completion of every 30 years; that the defendant-respondent Nagar Nigam has falsely denied from issuance of any lease in favour of plaintiff-petitioner by alleging the lease deed to be forged and fictitious; that learned trial court vide order dated 14.1.2014 allowed 6-C, application for ad-interim injunction directing both parties to maintain status quo over the property in suit till disposal of suit; that against order dated 16.1.2014 Nagar Nigam filed Civil Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2014 which has been allowed by impugned order dated 3.1.2019; that order of Appellate Court is wrong on facts and law; that it is wrong to say that lease in favour of plaintiff-petitioner is forged or fictitious; that the fact as to whether the impugned lease deed is forged or fictitious is a matter of evidence which is to be adduced before trial court and till disposal of

¶9

suit the same may not be treated as forged; that impugned order is liable to be set aside and parties are required to be directed to maintain status quo over the property in suit till disposal of suit.

¶10

Per contra learned counsel for Nagar Nigam supported impugned order and contended that order dated 16.1.2014 directing parties to maintain status quo is no order in the eye of law; that in above order learned trial court has mentioned that it is to be looked into as to whether prima facie case has been made out in favour of plaintiff while without any discussion over evidence/material or pleadings on record in very next line it has observed that since original allotment letter has been filed by plaintiff (genuineness of which is disputed) prima faice case is made out in favour of plaintiff and balance of convenience also lies in his favour.

¶11

It is pertinent to mention that there is no whisper in plaint or in injunction application as to what was the rent fixed in the alleged amendment letter/lease deed for a period of 90 years with alleged provision of 50% enhancement of rent every 30 years and paragraph 3 of plaint also shows that no rent was ever deposited by plaintiffpetitioner.

¶12

Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that petitioner has failed to show that at which rent the land in question was allotted in his favour on lease for a period of 90 years and whether rent was reserved monthly or yearly or for 30 years or any other period and since no rent is alleged to be reserved under the alleged lease deed the Appellate Court does not appear to have made any mistake in finding that plaintiff has failed to prove any prime facie case and question of balance of convenience in his favour does not arise.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to show any manifest error of fact or law or any perversity in the impugned order and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned order, under jurisdiction of Article 227

¶14

of Constitution of India.

¶15

The writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.4.2019 VS

Mehbubal Hasan v. Municipal Commissioner Nagar Nigam Moradabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehbubal Hasan v. Municipal Commissioner Nagar Nigam Moradabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Swaroop @ Ramadhar Vs State of U.P.

Harnarayan and Another Vs Jagmohan

Rajesh Alias Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Jadawati Devi Vs Hoob Lal Tiwari and 17 Others

Dharampal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Singhal Vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another