Jaikar Pandey and 2 Others Vs Mustaqeem Ahmad and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38310

Court No. - 17

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 771 of 2024

Petitioner :- Jaikar Pandey And 2 Others Respondent :- Mustaqeem Ahmad And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Khare,M.K. Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- Mohammad Aslam Khan

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Suneel Kumar Khare, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Mohammad Arif Khan learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Mohammad Aslam Khan, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 & 2. Opposite parties 3 and 4 being merely proforma in nature, notice is dispensed with.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record.

¶8

On 24.04.2024, the following order had been passed:-

¶9

"1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record.

¶10

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shadab Khan, learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2. Opposite parties 3 and 4 being merely proforma in nature, service of notice is dispensed with.

¶11

3. Petition has been filed challenging revisional order dated 07.04.2022 as well as orders dated 23.02.20219 and 21.01.2019 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Rent Control Proceedings pertaining to Section 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

¶12

4. From the record, it is borne out that the release application preferred by opposite parties 1 and 2 were allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and revision thereagainst was dismissed whereafter opposite parties 1 and 2 filed petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing No.879 of 2023 seeking implementation of the order passed in release proceedings. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2023 directing authorities concerned to ensure compliance of order passed on the Release Application. Thereafter, Applications numbered 2 and 3 of 2023 were preferred by present petitioner seeking condonation of delay and recall of order dated 22.02.2023 along with Application no.IA/4/2023. The said Applications were disposed of vide order dated 31.05.2023 indicating that Mr. Akash Dikshit, learned counsel for applicant does not wish to press the application seeking condonation of delay and recall of order dated 22.02.2023. Applications numbered 2 and 3 of 2023 were dismissed as not pressed while on Application No.4 of 2023, an affidavit of undertaking filed by present petitioner was noticed by

¶13

this Court and in view of the undertaking, time was granted to present petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord on or before 31.07.2023. The undertaking was also made part of order dated 22.02.2023.

¶14

5. It appears that in event of non-compliance with the directions issued by this Court, Contempt Petition bearing no.3264 of 2023 was filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 against petitioner no.1 in which appropriate directions were passed whereafter Application for recall of order dated 31.05.2023 was filed, which was rejected by means of order dated 31.01.2024. In the meantime, the present petition has been filed challenging the release and revisional orders.

¶15

6. In view of aforesaid narration of facts, it is evident that in view of order dated 31.01.2024 and order dated 31.05.2023, the undertaking given by present petitioner no.1 has been held to be final and in view thereof, the undertaking being binding upon present petitioner, the petition as such cannot be heard on merits.

¶16

7. However, learned counsel for petitioner submits that against orders dated 22.02.2023, 31.05.2023 and 31.01.2024, Special Leave Petition bearing diary no.14171 of 2024 has been filed, which is pending consideration.

¶17

8. In view of aforesaid, Office is directed to list this case on 20.05.2024, as fresh, in order to await the outcome of aforesaid Special Leave Petition."

¶18

In pursuance thereof, order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 06.05.2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 14171 of 2024 has been brought on record, which clearly indicates that the Special Leave Petition was dismissed finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It has, however, been subsequently indicated that on the submission of learned counsel for petitioners that a writ petition is pending before the High Court. The order dated 06.05.2024 is quoted as follows:-

¶19

"Delay in filing the re-filing is condoned.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (s) and having perused the petition papers in great detail, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶21

Accordingly, the petition (s) stands dismissed.

¶22

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner (s) submits that a writ petition is pending before the High Court. We express no opinion on the same. The same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶23

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶24

The aforesaid order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly indicates the fact that no interference was made with regard to orders dated 22.02.2023, 31.05.2023 and 31.01.2024, which

¶25

therefore have attained finality.

¶26

Despite the same, learned counsel for petitioners submits that even assuming the aforesaid orders to be correct, this Court has not adverted to the fact that the application for recall of the order dated 22.02.2023 and the affidavit of undertaking were filed only by petitioner no. 1, Jaikar Pandey whereas petitioners no. 2 & 3 being Smt. Rita Pandey and Raghav Pandey were also co-tenants of the premises in question and were therefore not bound by the aforesaid affidavit and also therefore the order dated 22.02.2023.

¶27

Upon perusal of the aforesaid affidavits, it is quite evident that the same has been filed only on behalf of Jaikar Pandey. However, it is also evident from a perusal of the revisional order dated 07.04.2022 passed in Rent Revision No. 1 of 2019 that in the said revision, Smt. Rita Pandey and Raghav Pandey were not arrayed as revisionists whereas the revision was filed by their predecessor in interest Ravindra Pandey. The order clearly indicates only two revisionists being Ravindra Pandey and Jaikar Pandey.

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioners has not been able to indicate that Smt. Rita Pandey and Raghav Pandey were party to the proceedings at any stage.

¶29

Learned counsel for petitioners has laid much emphasis on the fact that Smt. Rita Pandey and Raghav Pandey were arrayed as opposite parties in Writ Petition No. 879 of 2023 and therefore they are admitted to be co-tenants of the premises in question. This Court does not find any good ground in the aforesaid assertion primarily on account of the fact that the said two persons were not a party in the original proceedings for release or even at the revisional stage and therefore their mere impleadment in petition under Article 227 would not confer them with the status of a co-tenant without any finding with regard to same by the prescribed authority.

¶30

In view of aforesaid, the submission of the said two persons being co-tenants and having independent rights apart from that of Jaikar Pandey is rejected.

¶31

Considering the fact that the earlier orders dated 22.02.2023, 31.05.2023, 31.01.2024 have already attained finality by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, it would be inappropriate for this Court and against judicial propriety to reassess the same.

¶32

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present

¶33

writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed . Petitioners are directed to adhere to the orders passed by this Court earlier. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶34

Order Date :- 21.5.2024 Satish

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jaikar Pandey and 2 Others v. Mustaqeem Ahmad and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaikar Pandey and 2 Others v. Mustaqeem Ahmad and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jugal Kishor(Now Dead) Thru. Legal Heir Suresh Kumar and Others Vs Judge Small Causes Court at District Court, Lucknow and Another

Pappu Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Dr. Sanjai Misra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Higher Education Lko. and 6 Others

Jaikar Pandey and 2 Others vs Mustaqeem Ahmad and 3 Others

Dr. Aftab Iqbal Beg vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Lko. and 4 Others

Sandeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others