Writ petition challenging rent control release and revisional orders; earlier Article 227 orders and an undertaking had attained finality after Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Claim that co-tenants were bound by nothing was rejected as they were never parties to the original proceedings. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
"1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
"Delay in filing the re-filing is condoned.
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.
Accordingly, the petition (s) stands dismissed.
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.
Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
therefore have attained finality.
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.
Order Date :- 21.5.2024 Satish
Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners 2 and 3, not parties to the release or revision proceedings, were co-tenants not bound by the undertaking and orders passed against petitioner no.1
Whether the writ petition challenging the release and revisional orders could be entertained after earlier orders attained finality upon dismissal of the Special Leave Petition
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jaikar Pandey
Rita Pandey
Raghav Pandey
Mustaqeem Ahmad
Manish Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
