Court No. - 4

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3447 of 2022

Petitioner :- Intekhawb Hashmi

Respondent :- Arvind Gupta Alias Arvind Kumar Gupta And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shalini Goel,Manish Kumar Nigam

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

Heard Shri Manish Kumar Nigam, counsel for the petitioner.

This is a plaintiff's petition.

The plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 119 of 2021

(Intekhawb Hashmi Vs. Arvind Kumar Gupta & Another)

praying for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining

the defendants-respondents from interfering in his

possession over the suit property or from evicting the

plaintiff from the suit property and also for prohibiting the

defendants-respondents from damaging the suit property.

The aforesaid suit is pending in the court of Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Garvi, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to

as, trial court'). The plaintiff claims himself to be tenant of

the suit property and it is the admitted case of the plaintiff

that the defendants are the landlords of the suit property.

In the aforesaid case, the plaintiff also filed an application,

marked as Paper No. 6-C, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for a temporary injunction

restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering in

the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and

also from damaging the suit property. The trial court did

not grant an ex-parte temporary injunction and by order

dated 5.2.2021 directed that notices be issued to the

defendants in the case.

It appears from the order-sheet of the trial court that the

defendants have not yet appeared in the aforesaid Original

Suit No. 119 of 2021. However, in the meantime, vide order

dated 18.3.2021/19.3.2021 passed by the Nagar Ayukt,

Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as, 'Nagar

Ayukt') under Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal

Corporation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act,

1959'), the defendants-landlords were directed to repair

the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff-petitioner

that defendants did not comply with the order dated

19.3.2021 and did not take steps for repairing the suit

property. Subsequently, an order dated 5.4.2022 was

passed under Section 331 of the Act, 1959 by the Nagar

Ayukt directing the defendants-landlords to demolish the

suit property.

The plaintiff filed an application, marked as Paper No. 10-C,

bringing the order dated 5.4.2022 to the notice of the trial

court and prayed that the application for temporary

injunction be heard expeditiously. It has been stated in the

application that on the pretext of the order dated 5.4.2022,

the defendants were trying to demolish the suit property.

The said application was filed on 26.4.2022. The trial court

directed that the application, i.e., Paper No. 10-C, be put up

on the date already fixed in the case, i.e., on 6.5.2022, i.e.,

today.

Today the counsel for the petitioner has handed over a

copy of the list of cases fixed before the trial court, which

shows that no orders have been passed on the application

for temporary injunction and the case has been directed to

be listed on 26.8.2022. It has been stated in the petition

that, in the meantime, the defendants-landlords have

already demolished the first floor of the suit property

adversely affecting the business of the plaintiff-petitioner.

In support of his contention that the landlords-respondents

have already demolished the first floor of the suit property,

the plaintiff-petitioner has annexed, with the petition, the

photographs of the suit property. It has been further stated

that the defendants-landlords are taking all steps to

completely demolish the suit property.

In case, the landlords-defendants completely demolish the

suit property, the application for temporary injunction

would become infructuous. In the circumstances, it would

be appropriate to direct