Dismissed

Smt.Rama Devi v. VI Additional District Judge Faizabad and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC1 May 2025WRIA/1000128/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging eviction orders under U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 dismissed as the co-ownership defense was not raised below. Court granted 8 months to vacate subject to undertaking.

What did the court decide?

8 months time to vacate subject to filing undertaking.

What the court decided

Smt.Rama Devi Vs VI Additional District Judge Faizabad… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25162

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000128 of 2007

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt.Rama Devi Respondent :- Vi Additional District Judge Faizabad And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Adil Khan,Mohammad Aslam Khan, Mohiuddin Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., R. P. Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard Mohd. Arif Khan learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Aslam Khan, the counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents even the revised call.

¶7

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.01.2003 passed under section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 as well as the order dated 18.08.2007 whereby the appeal was dismissed.

¶8

The material on record indicates that the respondents claiming themselves to be the landlord instituted the proceedings under section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and pleaded that the premises in occupation was in a dilapidated condition and was required to be demolished and reconstructed. Along with the said application, the compliances which are required in terms of the Rules specifically Rule 16 were also filed. The prescribed authority by means of a detailed order passed on 31.01.2003 allowed the release application with direction to the tenant to vacate the premises in question within a period of two months. Aggrieved against the said order, an appeal was prescribed under section 22 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 18.08.2007. Aggrieved against the said order, the present petition has been filed.

¶9

The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, strenuously argues that the petitioner has specifically pleaded that during the pendency of the application, the petitioner had purchased a portion of the house in dispute from one of the co-sharers namely Kailash Nath son of Ram Lal and this aspect was not considered by the appellate court. It has been further stated that in respect of the registered sale deed executed, allegedly, in favour of the petitioner, a suit was filed for seeking a decree of permanent injunction. It is also stated that in the compromise filed in Regular Suit No.24 of 1967, the vendor of the petitioner Kailash Nath was allotted the portion of house no.1495 to 1497-M to the extent of house towards western side, which aspect has also not been considered. It is also stated that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed is also pending.

¶10

Considering the submissions made at the bar and recorded above, what transpires from the pleadings of the appellate order that no argument was raised by the appellant with regard to the alleged co-ownership of the property although a copy of the sale deed was filed. However, the appellate order does not record that any arguments were advanced. Even in the present writ petition,

¶11

there is no averment that there was a specific argument based upon the said document, but was not considered.

¶12

In the absence of the pleading, it is well settled that the court is to decide only the part which is argued. There being no argument additional to that effect, no relief can be grated, as prayed. The present writ petition being confined to error in decision making process. This court finds that no error is apparent in view of the arguments raised and considered by both the courts warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶14

At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner seeks that he may be granted some time to vacate the premises as the petitioner is aged about 76 years and has two minor daughter.

¶15

In view of the said averment, the petitioner is granted eight months' time up to 31.12.2025 subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking in the form of affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within a period of three weeks from today that he will handover the physical and vacant possession of the property in question to the landlord and no one else.

¶16

In case, such an undertaking is filed, the petitioner would be permitted to occupy the premises up to 31.12.2025. In the failure to file such an undertaking within a period of three weeks, the executing court shall take steps for execution of the decree within a period six months positively in view of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3640-3642 of 2025 (Periyammal (dead) through Lrs. and others vs. V. Rajamani and another Etc.) dated 06.03.2025

¶17

It is made clear that any observations made in the present case will not have any bearing in other proceedings pending inter se in between the parties. It is further clarified that any benefits that may accrued to the petitioner shall flow in his favour, however, the said benefits shall not enure the right of resist to possession.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.5.2025 VNP/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt.Rama Devi v. VI Additional District Judge Faizabad and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Smt.Rama Devi v. VI Additional District Judge Faizabad and 4 Ors.

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

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Vs Mahabeer

Hari Prasad Verma Vs the Special Additional District Judge and Another

Mohd. Habib and Others Vs Additional District JUDGE/FTC-4 Gonda and Another

Aman Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Lko. and Another

Narendra Kumar Duggal Vs Additional District Judge/ Special Judge E.C. Act Lko.

Rajveer Sharma Vs District Judge Lakhimpur Kheri