Dismissed

Smt. Meera Devi v. Smt. Kiran Mehrotra

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2021WRIA/5647/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order confirming the release of a shop to a tenant. The Court held that the petitioner tenant failed to comply with a prior order to vacate and shift to a new shop, resulting in the dismissal of the current petition with directions to complete execution proceedings and vacate the property. A penalty was also imposed for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to vacate property within two months and deposit rent; penalty of Rs. 1000 per day for non-vacation imposed.

Smt. Meera Devi Vs Smt. Kiran Mehrotra — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5647 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Meera Devi Respondent :- Smt. Kiran Mehrotra Counsel for Petitioner :- Arpit Agarwal,Akash Gupta,C.K.Parekh(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- Dharmendra Kumar Pandey,Dharmendra Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

The application dated 23.07.1999 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act 1972 for releasing of shop situated in House No. D-52/94 Luxa Road, Varanasi was filed by landlady/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant before Prescribed Authority Varanasi on the ground of his bonafide need. The said release application was allowed on 24.7.2002 passed by Prescribed Authority. Against it tenant has preferred Rent Appeal 15/2002, which was allowed on 30.11.2004 and the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the prescribed Authority for fresh adjudication. The Prescribed Authority, Varanasi again vide order dated 26.10.2010 allowed the release application. Against the said order, petitioner/tenants again filed a Rent Appeal 165 of 2010 and the appellate court vide its order dated 29.09.2012 dismissed the appeal and against the dismissal order 29.9.2012 in rent appeal, the petitioner/defendant had filed Writ petition No. 65809 of 2012 (Smt Meera Devi Vs Smt Kiran Mehrotra and othres), which was disposed of vide order dated 25.5.2013 with the following observation:-

¶6

"The precise agreement is that four feet wide and nine feet long shop will be provided by the landlady to the tenant. Length will be east-west and breadth will be north-south. It is shown in the map, which has been supplied by the landlady but in the said map, the breadth is shown to be two and a half feet. Now both the parties agree that breadth would be four feet and this four feet breadth will not include the area occupied by the walls, i.e. the distance from wall to wall will be four feet.

¶7

It has further been agreed that landlady will construct the new shop and deliver its possession to the tenant on 01.07.2013 and until then tenant will shift his existing shop towards road side, i.e. south by about six feet. Let the exchange take place simultaneously on or about 01.07.2013.

¶8

After much haggling, on the suggestion of the court, learned counsel for both the parties after consulting their clients, who are present in court have (slightly reluctantly) agreed for payment of rent since July, 2013 when new shop is handed over to the tenant at the rate of Rs.1750/- per month.

¶9

Impugned orders need not be given effect to in view of the compromise. "

¶10

It is contended by petitioner that in pursuance of the order dated 22.5.2013 passed by this court, the petitioner has already paid sum of Rs. 22000/- in cash to the landlady/respondent before the court and sum at the rate of Rs. 1725 per month being tendered to the respondent since 30.5.2013 but the respondent land lady has not complied the order and she has not receipt of

¶11

rent.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection in regard of impugned order dated 19.3.2021 challenged in the present writ petition. Petitioner already have moved an application No. 47(G) along with an affidavit (48G), seeking stay of the imposed order dated 19.3.2021 which has also been rejected by order dated 23.3..2021 passed by court below. It is further submitted that neither any averment regarding rejection of the application 47Ga has been mentioned in any para of the writ petition nor the order dated 23.3.2021 has been challenged in aforesaid writ petition. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not complied the order dated 22.5.2013 passed by this court. The petitioner tenant never paid the rent amount as fixed by this Court. The petitioner was required to make the rent and exchange the shop but the petitioner has not done so, therefore, the landlady/respondent has filed writ petition No. 43065 of 2013 and this Court vide order dated 10.9.2013 directed the petitioner/landland either to apply for execution or to file contempt . The landlady/respondent filed execution as per direction of the High Court vide order dated 10.9.2013. The prescribed authority issued commission through Court Amin for spot inspection. The Court Amin after giving notice to both parties and submitted its report that entire construction of ground floor is newly except the shop of the petitioner/tenant. Thereafter the court below passed the impugned order dated 19.3.2021.

¶13

In the result, considering the entire aspect of the present writ petition, court came to the conclusion that the petitioner/tenant who has not complied the order dated 22.5.2013 passed in Writ Petition A No. 65809 of 2012, where in specific order was passed to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the suit property and shift his business into the newly constructed shop of the applicant but petitioner/tenant did not vacate the suit property and got introduced one Munna Singh occupy a portion of the suit property which is shown in the Amin report. The petitioner/tenant has to be in the possession of the suit property and also had not paid the rent.

¶14

Consider the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is dismissed with direction to the court below to conclude the execution proceeding within one month and petitioner is directed to vacate the shop in question within two month, thereafter and deposit the entire decreetal amount as well as enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 3500/- before the court below who shall release the same in favour of the respondent without asking any security and in case the petitioner failed to vacate or to deposit the said amount, Rs. 1000/- per day penalty will be imposed on him till vacation of the suit property.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.10.2021 Neetu/RavindraKSingh

Smt. Meera Devi v. Smt. Kiran Mehrotra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meera Devi v. Smt. Kiran Mehrotra

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

Navab Julaha Vs State of U.P.

Smt.Rajkumari Vs Om Prakash and 2 Others

Vijay Kumar Vs Sneh Lata and Another

Raju Sharma Vs Ajay Kumar Gupta and Another

Mr. Jayant Juneja and 2 Others Vs Maya Sheel Retail Llt and Another

Devta Prasad Tiwari Vs Man Mohan Pandey