Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1565 (ALL)

RAMESH CHANDRA VAISHYA v. STATE OF U. P.

2008-08-07

S.U.KHAN

body2008
JUDGMENT S.U. KHAN, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri A.S. Diwekar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 Parasuram Vishwakarma. 2. Respondent No. 4 filed a release -application under section 21 of D.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against tenant-respondent No.5, Rajpal. Release application was filed on the ground of bona fide need. Property in dispute is a room. According to the case set up by the tenant respondent No.5, rent is Rs. 89/- per month. Learned Counsel for the landlord-respondent No.4 states that for several years, rent has not been paid. Payment of rent is not much relevant for the purpose of this writ petition. 3. Release application, which was registered as P.A Case No.1 of 2003 was allowed by Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C., Allahabad through judgment and order dated 19.2.2007. Against the said judgment and order, tenant-respondent No.5 Rajpal has filed appeal in the form of R.C. Appeal No. 59 of 2007. In the appeal, petitioner filed an application for impleadment showing that he was landlord. Said application has been rejected on 17.7.2008 by AD.J, Court No.2, Allahabad. Against the said order, this writ petition has been filed. Prima facie, it appears that petitioner has been set up by the tenant respondent No.5 to delay the proceedings. Argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he has filed regular suit being O.S. No. 145 of 2008 against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 4. If the suit is ultimately decreed, petitioner may apply to obtain possession from the landlord-respondent No.4, in case appeal is dismissed and he obtains possession otherwise petitioner would become landlord of respondent No.5 tenant. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 6. It is directed that eviction of respondent No. 5 Rajpal from the room in dispute shall remain stayed during pendency of appeal filed by him provided that w.e.f. August, 2008 onwards he deposits rent I damages for use and occupation before Lower Appellate Court @ Rs. 500/- per month by 7th of each succeeding month for immediate payment to landlord-respondent No.4 Parasuram Vishwakarma, who is respondent in the appeal. 7. This direction is being issued in view of the Supreme Court authority of Atma Ram Properties v. Federal Motors.1 2005 (58) ALR 650 (SC) =2005 (26) AIC 84 (SC). 8. 500/- per month by 7th of each succeeding month for immediate payment to landlord-respondent No.4 Parasuram Vishwakarma, who is respondent in the appeal. 7. This direction is being issued in view of the Supreme Court authority of Atma Ram Properties v. Federal Motors.1 2005 (58) ALR 650 (SC) =2005 (26) AIC 84 (SC). 8. However, it is clarified that no observations in this writ petition shall be taken into consideration by the Court where O.S. No. 145 of 2008 is pending. Petition Dismissed.