Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJAN ROY, RAVI NATH TILHARI, JJ.
Smt. Shiv Kumari Soni – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Energy Lucknow And Ors. – Respondents
Misc Bench No. 14773 of 2021
Decided on : 22-09-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Rental agreement - Power of High court to issue writs - Petition has been filed seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to give the admitted amount being the total remaining rental amount with interest to the petitioner as well as to direct the Managing Director - Whether opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 are party to the rental agreement – Held, rent agreement was between petitioner and the firm - Admittedly, official opposite parties were not party to it - The official opposite parties and its officials entered into an agreement with the firm naming Variegate Projects Private Limited for rural electrification - Petitioner was not a party to it. It appears in pursuance to the said contract between the firm and official opposite parties the firm took the premises of the petitioner for storing electrical goods etc, but did not pay the rent. In the meantime, the firm was blacklisted - On such blacklisting the official opposite parties stationed guards at the premises for safety of the electrical goods kept in the rental premises as they belonged to them - For that period rent or consideration whatever it may be called was paid by the official opposite parties to the petitioners - In so far as other dues i.e. rent payable by the firm, it is a dispute between the petitioner and firm – Court fail to comprehend as to how official opposite parties can be made liable in this regard - There in nothing on record to show that the Executive Engineer was ever authorized by the Corporation to give any such assurance, even if given, on which aspect we are not recording any finding, for payment of such rent – Court have already considered above that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact and consequently what we find is that a clear, sound and positive foundation has not been laid in the writ petition for invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation – Court is of the opinion that such matters are not amenable to writ jurisdiction merely because the official opposite parties are instrumentalities of State, as, essentially, it is a dispute pertaining to rent involving a money claim and complicated as also disputed question of fact as also pinciples of civil law are involved - The petitioner may therefore pursue other civil remedies as may be prescribed in law - Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-opposite party No.1 and Shri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 & 3.
2. This petition has been filed seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Energy-opposite party No.1 and the Managing Director, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Khand-4A, Lucknow-opposite party No.2 to direct the Executive Engineer, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Khand-2, Sultanpur, opposite party No.3 to give the admitted amount being the total remaining rental amount with interest to the petitioner as well as to direct the Managing Director, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Khand, Lucknow to consider and take appropriate decision in pursuance of Annexure Nos. 6 and 7 submitted before him by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur.
3. The facts of the case as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that for electrification in Rural areas of District Sultanpur, under the “Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyutikaran Scheme”, the Executive Engineer, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Khand-2 Sultanpur had given work to M/s Variegate Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad (herein after called as “the Firm”). The Firm entered into a rental agreement dated 01.03.2015 with the petitioner and took on lease the petitioner’s premises for storing electrical goods subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the rental agreement. The Firm was later on blacklisted and consequently when the opposite party No.3 tried to take possession of the electrical goods stored by the Firm, to shift it to its departmental store, the petitioner raised objection that the Firm had not made payment of rent and unless the payment was made, the petitioner would not let the electrical goods to be lifted and shifted from her premises. It has been submitted that the Executive Engineer apprised the District Magistrate, Sultanpur about the said situation vide letter dated 06.08.2016 and in pursuance thereof, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lambhua was directed to resolve the dispute. Thereafter on 08.08.2016 the Executive Engineer assured the petitioner for payment of the entire arrears of rent due against the Firm out of which payment of Rs. 1,10,000/-vide Cheque No. 039028 and of Rs. 3,97,767/-vide cheque No. 87174, drawn on Punjab National Bank, District Sultanpur, in total amounting to Rs. 5,07,767/-, was paid to the petitioner by the opposite party No.3 with promise to make payment of the balance of Rs. 5,32,707/-after shifting of the electrical goods. However, despite repeated request as the payment was not made, the petitioner submitted representation to the Managing Director-opposite party No.2 before whom the District Magistrate Sultanpur had also submitted its reports vide letters dated 17.11.2020, 02.01.2021 and 25.02.2021, but till date neither any decision has been taken by the Managing Director nor the payment has been made.
4. On our specific query to the petitioner’s counsel, whether opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 are party to the rental agreement he submitted that the agreement is only between the petitioner and M/s Variegate Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad. However, he further submitted that in view of the assurance given and the promise made by the Executive Engineer-opposite party No.3, to make payment of the entire outstanding rent amount the opposite parties made themselves liable for payment of the entire rent amount.
5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the District Magistrate, Sultanpur has already sent letters to the Managing Director, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Khand-Lucknow-opposite party No.2 and the payment, if any, is to be made by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.
6. Sri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the rental agreement was between the petitioner and the Firm. There is
The requisitioning of accommodation for government employees is deemed a public purpose and the courts are limited in scrutinizing such administrative actions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India depends on the circumstances of the case and the availabili....
The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court can be exercised in view of the admission made by the 3rd respondent regarding payments to be payable to the petitioner.
Compliance with statutory requirements, including pre-deposit and negotiated settlement, is crucial in tenancy disputes under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
The State Government exceeded its jurisdiction under the U.P. Rent Control Act by restoring a sub-letting order that contravenes established tenant rights, emphasizing the requirement that tenants oc....
it is clear that generally, the Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce the contractual obligation. It is designed to promote justice. The grant or refusal of the writ is at the di....
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
