Back
2013 Supreme(All) 2968
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, Rakesh Srivastava, JJ.
Ramesh Kumar and 4 Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 Others - Respondent
Writ - C No. - 23523 of 2013
Decided On : 26-04-2013
For the Petitioner: S.P.S. Parmar
For the Respondent: C.S.C.,A.K. Singh
Delay in approaching the Court after non-payment of rent and the authority's right to take steps for eviction.
Headnote:
Rent - Tenancy - Court dismissed the writ application seeking direction to permit the petitioner to deposit outstanding rent and not to evict them from their respective shops under their occupation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were tenants of shops constructed by Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad. They did not pay rent since 2001 and approached the Court after 12 years when eviction was initiated.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found no justification to accept the prayer of the petitioners and dismissed the writ application.
Issues: Non-payment of rent by the petitioners, delay in approaching the Court, and the authority's right to take steps for eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners' delay in approaching the Court after non-payment of rent for 12 years was unjustified, and the authority had the right to take steps for eviction in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed by the Court.
Hon'ble Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra & Rakesh Srivastava,JJ.: -
Heard Sri S.P.S.Parmar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri A.K.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the year 1982 the Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad constructed the shops in Mutthiganj, Allahabad. The husband of the petitioner no.2 was a tenant in respect of shop no.3 and after his death the petitioner is in possession of the said shop. The further case of the petitioner is that though rent was received by the Development Authority, after 2001 rent is not being received in spite of repeated efforts made by the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer in the writ application is for directing the respondent no.3 to permit the petitioner to deposit the outstanding rent and also not to evict them from their respective shops under their occupation.
3. Sri Singh learned counsel appearing for the Development Authority submitted that the writ application is not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen.
4. We find from the record that though the petitioners were tenants in respect of the shops, they did not paid rent since 2001. In the year 2000 a notice was issued to them to purchase the shop under their occupation and challenging the said notice the petitioners approached this Court in Writ Petition No.13581 of 2001. This Court on 19.04.2001 held that the Authority cannot compel the petitioners to deposit the amount for sale of the shops and also further held that the petitioners shall pay the rent as tenants but the same shall not prevent the Authority from taking steps for eviction of the tenants in accordance with law. The petitioners themselves obtained order from this Court but did not pay the rent since 2001. It appears only when a drive for eviction has been undertaken, the petitioners approached this Court for above direction to the Authority. We are of the view that if the Authority did not receive the rent in 2001 there was no need for the petitioners to wait for 12 years to approach this Court. We therefore, find no justification to accept the prayer of the petitioners.
5. The writ application is dismissed.
