Disposed

Vimlesh Kumar Dixit v. Additional District Collector/Rent Authority, District-Hardoi and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2024/1567/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Rent Tribunal's rejection of an interim stay application. The Court held that while the Tribunal has discretion to reject stays due to non-appearance, it considered the Apex Court's precedent regarding protection of subject matter. The Court issued a stay contingent upon the petitioner securing an undertaking to appear on every date in the

What did the court decide?

Stay of the operative order dated 19.2.2024 granted contingent upon petitioner's undertaking to appear on all dates in the pending appeal without adjournment; direction to subordinate Tribunal to deci

Vimlesh Kumar Dixit Vs Additional District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19458

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1567 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vimlesh Kumar Dixit

¶5

Respondent :- Additional District Collector/Rent Authority, District-Hardoi And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arunendra Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rama Pati Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

An application for amendment filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶8

Office to assign a number to the aforesaid application.

¶9

Sri Rama Pati Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 4, states that he does not intend to file any objection to the aforesaid application.

¶10

On due consideration, the application is allowed. Let necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day.

¶11

Order on memo of petition

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1, and Sri Rama Pati Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 4.

¶13

With the consent of learned counsels for the contesting parties, the petition is being decided finally.

¶14

Instant petition has been filed praying for setting aside the order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the leaned Rent Tribunal, Hardoi/Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Hardoi, under Section 35(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.01 of 2024 in re: Vimlesh Kumar Dixit and others vs. Achintya Kumar Singh and others, by which the learned Rent Tribunal has rejected the interim relief application of the petitioner for stay of the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by respondent no.1 even

¶15

though the appeal is still pending.

¶16

Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another vs. Raja Buland Sugar Company - (1982) 1 SCC 484 , the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Apex Court has held that during judicial proceedings some protection should be given for the subject matter/property in question otherwise the purpose of admitting such proceedings would be frustrated.

¶17

Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to have rejected the application for stay and at the same time keeping the appeal pending and as such he prays that till such time the appeal is not decided the order dated 21.12.2023 aggrieved against which the aforesaid appeal has been filed be stayed.

¶18

On the other hand, Sri R.P. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondents to 2 to 4, states that repeatedly the petitioner has failed to put in appearance in the pending appeal with the result that the learned Tribunal has proceeded to reject the application for stay and has kept the appeal pending for consideration. He further states that in case the petitioner gives an undertaking of appearing before the learned Tribunal on each and every date and does not seek any adjournment then this Court may stay the operation of the order impugned dated 21.12.2023 which has been challenged in the appeal.

¶19

Having heard learned counsels for the contesting parties and having perused the records, it emerges that by means of order impugned dated 19.02.2024 the learned Tribunal in the pending Civil Appeal no.01 of 2024 has rejected the application for stay and at the same time, the appeal is still pending. The learned Tribunal may have various reasons for rejecting the stay application but keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav (supra) there cannot be any occasion of keeping the appeal pending and at the same time having rejected the application for stay. At the same time, rejection of an application for stay is the discretion of the learned Tribunal which may have

¶20

been occasioned on account of the petitioner not putting in appearance before the learned Tribunal.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of by recording the undertaking of Sri A.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner and his counsel would be appearing on each and every date in the pending appeal. It is provided that till such time the pending appeal is not decided by the learned Tribunal no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Rent Authority which has been challenged in the aforesaid appeal. However, in case any adjournment is sought on any pretext whatsoever by either the petitioner or his counsel then benefit of this order shall not be available to the petitioner.

¶22

It is also provided that the pending appeal shall be decided by the learned Tribunal in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶23

Order Date :- 4.3.2024 A. Katiyar

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vimlesh Kumar Dixit v. Additional District Collector/Rent Authority, District-Hardoi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimlesh Kumar Dixit v. Additional District Collector/Rent Authority, District-Hardoi 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunny Joseph Vs Pastorate Committee and Central Methodist Church Thru. Secy.and

Jyoti Devi Vs Mayank Singh Sachan

Navjeevan Diagnostic Center, District-Amethi Thru. Its Owner/Surya Mani Mishra and Another Vs Appropriate Authority/State Appellate Authority Under P.C.P.N.D.T. Act Thru. Chairman and 3 Others

Smt.Chandra Kali W/O Sri Sarju Prasad Vs the Chief Revenue Officer/Additional Collector Pratapgarh

Ranveer Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. A.D.M. Revenue Lucknow and 4 Others

Bhuvaneshwar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 3 Others