Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. P. Mathur, A. C. J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.
ANAND MOHAN SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
NIRANJAN LAL GUPTA - Respondents
Special Appeal 589 Of 2002
Decided On : 12/11/2002
undertaking - Writ Petition No. 35613 of 2002 - U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and eviction) Act, 1972, Section 16(1)(b) - 16(1)(b) - The judgment discussed the appellant's undertaking to vacate the premises within three months, the legal definition of an undertaking, and the precedent that a party giving an undertaking is not precluded from challenging the judgment by way of appeal. The court also examined the enforceability of the undertaking given by the appellant in Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1991 and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce such undertakings.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged a judgment allowing a writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, which was based on the appellant's undertaking to vacate the premises within three months. The appellant argued that the undertaking was given under the direction of the court and did not preclude the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's undertaking in Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1991, to vacate the premises within one year, was enforceable. The court also held that the appellant's appeal was maintainable despite the undertaking given in the writ petition.
Issues: The issues included the enforceability of the appellant's undertaking, the jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce undertakings, and the maintainability of the appellant's appeal despite the undertaking given in the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a party giving an undertaking is not precluded from challenging the judgment by way of appeal. It also clarified the enforceability of the appellant's undertaking in Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1991 and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce such undertakings.
Final Decision: The special appeal lacked merit and was dismissed without any order as to cost.
( 1 ) WE have heard Sri Ravi Kant, senior advocate appearing along with Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey for the appellant and Sri Arjun Singhal appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.
( 2 ) BY this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 23rd October, 2002 passed by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 35613 of 2002. Niranjan Lal Gupta v. District magistrate, Allahabad and Anr. , allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1.
( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are ; father of respondent No. 1 moved an application under Section 16 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and eviction) Act, 1972, for release of accommodation of which appellant was tenant. The release application was rejected by Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide his order dated 13th January, 1987. A revision was filed against the above order which too was dismissed vide order dated 20th November, 1990. Father of respondent No. 1, late Sri Kundan Lal, filed Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1991 challenging both the orders dated 13th January, 1987 and 20th November, 1990. Kundan Lal died during pendency of the writ petition and in his place, respondent No. 1 was substituted as his heir. In Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1991, a joint affidavit was filed by the appellant as well as respondent No. 1 to the effect that appellant is ready to vacate the disputed accommodation within a period of one year from the date of filing the compromise. Respondent no. 1 agreed to allow time to vacate. On the basis of aforesaid affidavit filed by appellant and respondent No. 1 and other heirs of Kundan Lal, this Court passed an order dated 16th August, 1996, dismissing the writ petition in view of the facts stated in the application filed on 15. 5. 1995. Appellant filed an application in the aforesaid writ petition for recall of the order dated 16th august, 1996, which was dismissed on 1st August, 2001. After the aforesaid order dated 1st august, 2001, respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for execution of the order passed by this Court which according to him, amounted to an order of release of the building in favour of the landlord. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer recommended for issuance of Form-C, Form-C was issued but thereafter Form-D was not issued. Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 9836 of 2002 which was disposed of on 7th March, 2002, directing the District Magistrate to pass appropriate order in accordance with law on the recommendation of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 22nd December, 2001. The district Magistrate passed an order dated 21st May, 2002, refusing to issue Form-D. The order dated 21st May, 2002 was challenged by respondent No. 1 by filing Writ Petition No. 35613 of 2002. The aforesaid writ petition has been allowed by learned single Judge vide his judgment dated 23rd October, 2002, against which present special appeal has been filed. At the time of passing of Judgment dated 23rd October, 2002, the appellant, who was present in the Court, offered to vacate the building provided he is granted reasonable time. Learned single Judge while passing the judgment dated 23rd October, 2002, granted three months time to the appellant to vacate the building subject to condition that appellant submits an undertaking in writing before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, within three days. Counsel for the respondents has stated that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 23rd October, 2002, the appellant has submitted a written undertaking before the District Magistrate, Allahabad, on 25th october, 2002 which fact has not been denied by counsel for the appellant.
( 4 ) THE counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that appellant having undertaken in Writ Petition No. 35613 of 2002 to vacate the premises within three months and having also filed a written undertaking before th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
