Back
2010 Supreme(All) 1679
2010 (81) ALR 576
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Smt. Zohra Begum - Petitioner
Versus
Judge Small Causes Court Meerut & Others - Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 8719 of 2010
Decided on: 13.5.2010
Petitioner Counsel:- Mohammad Isa Khan
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders and the obligation of the tenant to vacate the premises as directed by the court.
Headnote:
possession - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 21, Section 23 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 21 and Section 23 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and emphasized the requirement for the tenant to deposit rent as per the court's order. The court also highlighted the power of the executing court to deliver possession and the obligation of the authorities to assist in the execution of orders.
Fact of the Case:
The landlady sought possession of the disputed property under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Despite multiple court orders in her favor, the tenant and his brother did not vacate the premises or comply with the court's directives.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the executing court to immediately execute the writ of possession and hand over vacant possession to the petitioner, with the assistance of the District Magistrate and the Dy. Inspector General of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut.
Issues: Non-compliance with court orders, failure to vacate the premises, and delay in executing the writ of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation of the tenant to comply with the court's directives and the power of the executing court to deliver possession. It also highlighted the duty of the authorities to provide assistance in the execution of orders.
Final Decision: The executing court was directed to immediately execute the writ of possession, and the authorities were instructed to provide full assistance for the execution of the orders.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. The petitioner landlady, even after obtaining an order of release which has been upheld till the Apex Court is unable to obtain possession despite various orders of this Court and rejection of the objections filed by the tenant and his brother.
3. The facts would be evident from an order dated 21.7.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.34760 of 2008 :
"Petitioner landlady filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against tenant Harish Bhatia respondent No.2. Release petition No.6491 of 2008 was filed. Writ Petition was dismissed by this court on 4.2.2008, however landlady was directed to deposit two years' rent before prescribed authority as per second proviso to Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. As the rate of rent was Rs.900/- per month, hence Rs.21,600/- were deposited by the landlord on 3.3.2008. Against the judgment of this court dated 4.2.2008, SL.P. Was filed before Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, review petition was filed in this court, which was dismissed on 13.3.2008. Thereafter petitioner started proceedings for eviction under Section-23 of the Act. Parwana dakhal was issued to the Amin, who reported that it was necessary to get help of police for delivery of possession respondent No.2 Harish Bhatia filed application that the co-tenant. Application was filed under Order XXI Rules 99 to 106 CPC and was registered as Misc. Case No.22 of 2008 on the file of Prescribed Authority/JSCC Meerut. In the said case, stay order has been granted on 22.5.2008 and it has been directed that Parwana dakhal already issued and which was to be executed by 24.5.2008 should not be executed. The court wonders that how Prescribed Authority can pass an order against the release order confirmed by the High Court as well as Supreme Court.
In order to frustrate the eviction order obtained by the landlord confirmed by the High Court as well as as Supreme Court, often tenant puts forward his relations. The same thing appears to have been done in the instant case.
Writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Prescribed Authority to decide Misc. Case no.22 of 2008 very expeditiously. If it is found that Sri Rajan Bhatia has abused the process of court, then very heavy cost amounting to Rs.1 lacs shall be imposed upon him. Until decision of Misc. Case No.22 of 2008, eviction of any person, who is in possession of shop in dispute, shall remained stayed provided that damages for use and occupation @ Rs.10000/- (ten thousand) per month starting from May, 2008 are deposited before the Prescribed Authority. Damages at the said rate for the month of May, June and July, 2008 shall be deposited within a week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the Prescribed Authority after serving a copy upon the learned counsel, who is appearing for the applicant in Misc. Case no.22 of 2008. Damages at the said rate w.e.f. August, 2008 shall be deposited by 7th of each succeeding month.
In case of single default, possession shall at once be delivered by the Prescribed Authority to the petitioner. No further latitude or laxity on the part of the Prescribed Authority will at all be appreciated by this court.
Absolutely, no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties. If court below is inclined to grant any adjournment on any ground to any of the parties, then it shall be on very heavy cost, which shall not be less than Rs.1000/- per adjournment.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of."
However, neither the tenant nor his brother vacated the premises nor deposited or tendered the amount as fixed by this Court in the aforesaid order. The trial court dismissed his objection vide order dated 7th of August 2008 and a consequential appeal was also dismissed by the District Judge vi
