Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1255 (ALL)

Ramesh Kumar v. State of U. P.

2013-04-26

LAXMI KANTA MOHAPATRA, RAKESH SRIVASTAVA

body2013
JUDGMENT 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.