Disposed

Arun Kumar v. Shafiq Ahmad and 7 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2020WRIA/3947/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition assailing orders regarding eviction. While noting the petitioner's inability to point out manifest errors, the Court allowed 9 months further time to vacate premises. The respondents were informed they could seek execution or invoke contempt if the order is flouted.

What did the court decide?

Granted the petitioner 9 months further time to vacate the premises in question, requiring the filing of an affidavit.

Arun Kumar Vs Shafiq Ahmad and 7 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3947 of 2020 Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Respondent :- Shafiq Ahmad And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Singh,Saroj Kashyap Counsel for Respondent :- Mohd. Sarwar Khan

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the defendantpetitioner and Mohd. Sarwar Khan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents.

¶5

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned judgement and order dated 07.10.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Jaunpur in P.A. Case No.10 of 2007 (Shafiq Ahmad & another vs. Mahaveer (deceased) and others) as well as the judgement and order dated 29.1.2020 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Jaunpur in Rent Appeal No.05 of 2017 (Arun Kumar vs. Shafiq Ahmad and others).

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error apparent on the face of record in the impugned orders so as to justify interference by this Court. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the same.

¶7

In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority. This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.

¶8

Confronted with this situation, Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some reasonable time

¶9

may be accorded so that the petitioner may vacate the premises in question.

¶10

So far as this proposal is concerned, Mohd. Sarwar Khan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents, on the basis of instructions, submits that the the premises in question is in dilapidated condition and at any time it may collapse. He also submits that the Nagar Nigam has already allotted the accommodation to the petitioner and as such, there is no equity in his favour. However, he submits that some reasonable time may be accorded so that the property may be vacated.

¶11

In the interest of justice, the defendant-petitioner is allowed 9 months' further time to vacate the premises in question and an affidavit in this regard is to be filed by the petitioner within a week's time in the registry, which may be restored in the record.

¶12

As it has been informed that the execution proceeding is also pending consideration, in case the present order is flouted by the petitioner, the plaintiffs-respondents would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for expediting the execution proceeding or may also be at liberty to invoke the remedy as available under the Contempt of Court Act.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.12.2020 RKP

Arun Kumar v. Shafiq Ahmad and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar v. Shafiq Ahmad and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay Vs Mandir Hanumanji Maharaj Sarajanik Nyas Virajman and 2 Others

Kamlawati Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikram Datt Sharma Vs State of U P and Another

Hirawati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nand Kishor Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others