A court can issue a mandamus to enforce compliance with a final decree when ordinary execution methods fail due to obstruction by state authorities.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Swapnil Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri A.K. Trivedi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has engaged the attention of this Court regularly during the past twelve years. The transaction, out of which this writ petition has arisen, the cause of action involved and the relief claimed, are all very unusual and unconventional; but not without good reason.

3. The petitioner, who has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the Judge, Small Cause Court to ensure handing over of actual physical possession of the suit property, subject matter of the decree dated 14.11.1991 passed by the said Judge in SCC Suit No. 108 of 1989, has not chosen this very unusual course without a most astounding situation he is confronted with. He has further prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents, by which apparently he means respondent No. 2, the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Collector, Agra, directing them to pay damages to the petitioner @ Rs. 10,000/- per month, with effect from the date of the decree dated 14.11.1991 up to the date of delivery of actual possession. It may sound like an ill-advised relief to be asked by a decree-holder in a writ petition, but that too has some background to it, as the facts of the case here would show.

4. The petitioner is the plaintiff of SCC Suit No. 108 of 1989, instituted in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, Agra on 14th March, 1989. The suit aforesaid was instituted by the present petitioner’s father, Mr. R.B.L. Gupta, Advocate. Pending proceedings at the stage of execution, the plaintiff-decreeholder, R.B.L. Gupta died and his son, the petitioner, Dr. B.K. Gupta was substituted. Thus, for all intents and purposes, now Dr. B.K. Gupta son of the late R.B.L. Gupta, the original plaintiff, shall be called the petitioner.

5. Reverting in time, when the suit was instituted, it was the petitioner’s case that the State Government of Uttar Pradesh was a tenant of the petitioner in the property bearing Municipal No. 6/336, situate at Khandari Road, Hari Parwat Ward, Agra, with details mentioned at the foot of the plaint and shown in red colour in the map annexed to the plaint. The State Government were his tenants, who are respondent No. 2 here, at a monthly rent of Rs.15/- per month, the tenancy commencing on the 1st day of every English calendar month. The aforesaid premises, let out by the petitioner to the State Government, shall hereinafter be called ‘the suit property’. It comprised two pucca rooms with a door between them, oriented towards Khandari Road in the north and behind the said room, there was a gate and a tin shed, attached to it towards the south. Thereafter, there was an open land further to the south. The suit property, as already said, is detailed in the plaint map. The suit property is said to be bound on all sides by a boundary wall, approximately 10 feet high on the east and 12 feet in the south.

6. It is the petitioner’s case, pleaded in the plaint giving rise to the suit, that the State have not paid rent since 1st March, 1988, despite repeated requests. It is the petitioner’s case further pleaded in the plaint that the then S.H.O. Hari Parwat, one Albel Singh, Chowki In-charge Chowki Khandari, Omveer Singh Pundir and Constables Vansraj Singh and Nawab Singh, within knowledge of the Senior Superintenden