Disposed

Smt. Prema Jain v. Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, Assistant Commissioner (Nagar)(Rent), Nagar Nigam Lko.

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024CAPL/2852/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application alleging disobedience of an order to demarcate Shop No.24, the court directed the authority to explain the discrepancy between the allotted area (914.6 sq. ft.) and the demarcated area (775.59 sq. ft.) before the next hearing.

What did the court decide?

Compliance affidavit rejected; applicant directed to appear on 13.09.2024; respondent summoned to explain area discrepancy on 1.10.2024.

Smt. Prema Jain vs Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, Assistant… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2852 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Prema Jain Opposite Party :- Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, Assistant Commissioner (Nagar)(Rent), Nagar Nigam Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Smt. Nalini Prakash Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- Namit Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

1. On 12.9.2024, following order was passed:-

¶6

1. Heard Smt. Nalini Prakash Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

2. The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the order dated 04.04.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 2894 of 2024.

¶8

3. On 21.08.2024, following order was passed:-

¶9

"1. Application for rejection of the affidavit for discharge of contempt notices/compliance affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶10

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that neither the map of the shop no.24 nor the detail of the area has been informed to the applicant.

¶11

3. Sri Namit Sharma, Advocate appearing for the respondent requests for some time to file affidavit of compliance.

¶12

4. Accordingly, request made by Sri Namit is allowed.

¶13

5. List this case on 04.09.2024 at 2:30 P.M.

¶14

6. By the next date, the respondent shall file fresh affidavit of compliance."

¶15

4. On 04.09.2024, following order was passed:"List this case on 12.09.2024 at 11:30 A.M. On the next date, complete record related to the allotment of Shop No.24 as well as the order passed by Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Lucknow dated 05.08.2024 be placed before this Court."

¶16

5. In pursuance of the order dated 04.09.2024, relevant record is placed before this Court by Mr. Manoj Kumar Neeraj, Tax Superintendent, Zone-1, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow.

¶17

6. The aforesaid record clearly reveals that shop nos. 24 and 25 were allotted in the name of M/s Aggarwal Motors as there was some dispute between the partners. As one partner of the said firm died, shop no. 24 was allotted in the name of Prema Jain by the then Municipal Commissioner vide order dated 12.08.2016 with the consent of other partners as well as legal heirs of deceased. Thereafter, it was expected from the engineer of the area concerned to prepare boundary of both the shops. In this connection, map was prepared and the same was submitted before the authority.

¶18

It is evident that noting was also prepared mentioning therein that area inspector be directed to ensure construction of partition wall between the shop nos. 24 and 25.

¶19

7. It is informed by learned counsel for the applicant that the suit filed in the year 2016 has no relevancy with the property in question.

¶20

8. The applicant is hereby directed to appear before Assistant/Deputy Municipal Commissioner Rent, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow on 13.09.2024 at 11:30 A.M.

¶21

The authority concerned shall ensure demarcation of shop no.24 which is allotted to the applicant and shall submit a report before this Court.

¶22

9. List this case on 24.09.2024 at 11:30 A.M.

¶23

10. By the next date of listing, relevant report be placed before this Court by the concerned authority.

¶24

11. The aforesaid record is returned to Mr. Manoj Kumar Neeraj.

¶25

12. On the next date, the aforesaid record be again produced before

¶26

this Court by the concerned officer according to the allotment order.

¶27

Sri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party filed affidavit of compliance duly signed by Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Assistant Commissioner (Rent), Nagar Nigam, Lucknow and informs that Shop No.24 has already been demarcated for partition which is allotted to the applicant by Nagar Nigam and presently the shop No.24 is having length & width of 19 feet x 34.34 feet 3 inch floor area and the total floor area measuring 775.59 sq. feet is handed over to the applicant.

¶28

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the allotment floor area of Shop No.24 is 914.6 sq. feet and the original record placed before this Court by Mr. Gyan Chandra, Head Superintendent, Municipal Corporation, Lucknow, as page 12 of the internal noting of the original record clearly reveals that Mr. Ajeet Tiwari, Inspector inspected the Shop No.24 and found that shop no.24 is having area 914.60 sq. feet, accordingly, rent was fixed @ 2.25 per sq. feet, total Rs.10,290 p.m. but in the affidavit of compliance, the area of Shop No.24 is shown 775.90 sq. feet, which is contrary to the original record placed before this Court, therefore, affidavit of compliance is hereby rejected.

¶29

4. List this case on 1.10.2024 at 11:30 A.M.

¶30

On the next date, respondent shall appear before this Court alongwith complete record and explain that under what circumstances area of 775.59 is given to the applicant for Shop No.24 when the original record categorically reveals that 914.6 sq. feet area was allotted to the applicant and the rent is also being charged.

¶31

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 Gaurav/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Prema Jain v. Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, Assistant Commissioner (Nagar)(Rent), Nagar Nigam Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Prema Jain v. Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, Assistant Commissioner (Nagar)(Rent), Nagar Nigam Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Gopal and 3 Others Vs Lallu and 2 Others

Ambrish Chandra @ Ambrish Chandra Kesharwani Vs Civil Judge Junior Devision Kunda Pratapgarh and 4 Others

Ganga Verma and Another Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Sadar Dist. Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Mesers Bajaj Capital Insurence Broking Ltd.Lucknow Vs Shiman Vidit Pradhikari and Sahayak Sharm Ayukt U.P. Lucknow

Shiv Prasad and 3 Ors. Vs Additional District Judge/Special Judge Essential and 5 Ors.

Yakoob Ali Vs Appellate Authority/Chief Judicial Magistrate Shrawasti andORS