Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties in both the revisions.

2. Both the revisions have been preferred by the defendant who is either tenant or licensee. The first revision is directed against order dated 29.3.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad in Original Suit No.283 of 2009 - R.N. Bhargava vs. Auto mobiles Association. Through the said order amendment application of the tenant-applicant seeking amendment in the written statement has been rejected. Through the second revision order dated 18.4.2012 passed by the same Judge in the same suit has been challenged through which application of the plaintiff/opposite party in these revisions for striking off the defence of the defendant/applicant in these revisions under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. has been allowed.

3. Copy of the plaint is Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application in the first Revision. In the plaint plaintiff/opposite party in these revisions has described himself as landlord. It has been stated in para-2 that on the persuasion of a retired Chief Justice and a former Judge of this court the accommodation in dispute was given on licence for three months to the defendant on 15.7.2002. Copy of the license deed was annexed alongwith the plaint however, to the copy of the plaint filed alongwith the affidavit in the revision that deed is not annexed. Thereafter, it is mentioned that after the expiry of the period the accommodation was not vacated inspite of repeated requests. The suit was filed before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad. Relief claimed is of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the premises occupied by it as licensee and to deliver the same to the plaintiff. Damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per day have also been demanded. In the plaint it has not been mentioned that what was the license fees (it is possible that in the license deed it may have been mentioned).

4. The next annexure to the affidavit is written statement of defendant-applicant in which it has been admitted that on the persuasion of a former Chief Justice and a former Judge building in dispute was given by the plaintiff to the defendant. However, it has been denied that it was given on licence and it has been asserted that it was given on rent of Rs.2,500/- per month. The authenticity and the purpose of the document termed as licence deed by the plaintiff has also been questioned. It has been stated in the same para that tenancy started with effect from 10.10.2002.

5. Earlier also matter was brought to this court in the form of Matters under Artice 227 No. 2491 of 2011 R.N. Bhargava vs. U.P. Automobile Association, Allahabad. The grievance in the said petition was that plaintiff's application for striking off the defence was not being considered. This court decided the said matter on 16.11.2011. Copy of the said order is Annexure-4 to the same affidavit. It was directed that the trial court should proceed with the hearing and disposal of the suit expeditiously; no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted; if any adjournment is granted then it shall be on heavy cost which shall not less than at the rate of Rs.500/- per adjournment. In the first paragraph of the said judgment it was observed that "Evidently, the defendant-respondent is enjoying the property in question either as a licensee or as a tenant but without paying any damages/rent."

6. In these revisions arguments were heard and judgment was reserved on 7.5.2012. Order passed on the said date is quote below:-

"Heard learned counsel for both the parties on both the revisions.

Sri Dinesh Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant on the objection of the learned counsel for the other side requested for deletion of applicant no.2 from the array of the parties. Prayer is accepted. Let applicant no.2 be deleted from the array of the parties right now.

Order reserved.

List for delivery of order on 22.5.2012.

Until 22.5.2012 further proceedings of the suit(Origi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document