Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 177 (ALL)

Harish Tandon v. State of U. P. and Others

2013-01-15

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2013
Sudhir Agarwal, J.;— 1. Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.08.2005 passed by Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 14, Allahabad in M.P.A. No. 01 of 2002 deciding petitioner's Applications No. 21B and 24B observing that the compromise entered between erstwhile tenant, Justice M.C. Desai subsequently represented by his daughter, Smt. Sneh Lata Patel was only in respect to part of disputed accommodation, i.e., Bungalow No. 57, Daya Nand Marg, Allahabad and not for entire premises of said Bungalow and hence those who are occupying the outhouses of said premises cannot be directed to be evicted pursuant to compromise decree entered between parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 14 of aforesaid compromise dated 15.02.1979 to demonstrate that it was in respect to entire premises and not for a part thereof. The distinction was that the residential portion of Bungalow was vacated immediately on entering the compromise and rest of the part was agreed to be vacated after expiry of 20 years or earlier at the option of tenant itself. In my view he is right in saying so. The aforesaid clauses read as under: "2. That the opposite party admits the present bonafide requirement of the applicant in respect of the part of the main residential bungalow shown in red, and marked by letters ABCDEFA, in the attached map of the main residential building, the map forming part of this compromise, and, subject to the terms and conditions laid down herein below, the opposite party agrees to the release of the aforesaid part of the bungalow in favour of the applicant. 3. That the aforesaid part of the bungalow which may be released in favour of the applicant as aforesaid comprises of a bed room, a dressing room, a bathroom and a covered verandah. The opposite party agrees to vacate this part of the building within one month of the passing of orders by the Prescribed Authority in terms of this compromise. 4. The opposite party agrees to vacate this part of the building within one month of the passing of orders by the Prescribed Authority in terms of this compromise. 4. That as regards the remaining part of the bungalow and premises subject to the terms and conditions laid down below, the opposite party agrees to vacate the same at the end of the 20th year from the date on which orders are passed upon this application in terms of this compromise failing which the opposite party or any person claiming under him shall be liable to be evicted through court. In case, however, the opposite party decides to vacate this remaining portion at his option only earlier he agrees he will deliver possession of the same to the applicant on so vacating this remaining accommodation. 5. That the opposite party after delivering the possession of the above mentioned part (mentioned by letters ABCDEFA) to the applicant will pay @ 225/- p.m. as rent for the remaining accommodation so long as he remains in possession of it. 6. That subject to the terms and condition laid down in this compromise application the opposite party has no objection to the release of the remaining portion of the accommodation, the release to be effective only upon the expiry of the above stated period of 20 years, or earlier at the option only of the opposite party in the event of opposite party deciding to leave Allahabad for good. 14. That the map annexed hereto shows only the main residential bungalow of the premises no. 57 (new), Maharshi Dayanand Marg, Allahabad. The portion to be vacated in a month is shown in the map in red and is marked by the letters ABCDEFA. The remaining portion of the main bungalow together with the whole of the remaining premises at No. 57, Maharshi Dayanand Marg, Allahabad, shall form part of the premises to remain in possession of the opposite party for the aforesaid period of 20 years from the date of the passing of orders on this application of compromise. The remaining portion of the main bungalow together with the whole of the remaining premises at No. 57, Maharshi Dayanand Marg, Allahabad, shall form part of the premises to remain in possession of the opposite party for the aforesaid period of 20 years from the date of the passing of orders on this application of compromise. The door between the bedroom of the portion to be vacated in a month and the existing drawing room shall be included in the accommodation left in the opposite party's possession for 20 years as also the northern wall of the small room to the west of the drawing room and to the south of the Veranda attached to the bedroom to be vacated within a month." 4. The perusal of aforesaid makes it very clear and it is beyond doubt that entire premises of bungalow was let out to Justice M.C. Desai (now deceased) and the compromise in question was also entered into in respect to entire premises and not to a portion thereof. The court below has completely misread the aforesaid document. 5. Moreover, the compromise decree was passed on 15.02.1979 and it is pursuant thereto petitioner-landlord has proceeded for execution thereof. It is also evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition that after death of Justice M.C. Desai, the then tenant occupying aforesaid bungalow, Smt. Sneh Lata Patel could deliver the possession of entire open land of bungalow except servants' quarters which she mentioned as unauthorised and illegal occupants. The relevant contents of possession handing over document reads as under: "In view of the release order dated 15.02.1979 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Allahabad in P.A. case No. 21 of 1978: Harish Tandon Vs. Mr. Justice M.C. Desai under section 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against my late father, I have vacated the entire remaining portion of the main building including the entire open land of building No. 139-B, Civil Station, Allahabad, except all servant quarters (outhouses) occupied by illegal and unauthorised occupants and have delivered its vacant possession to the landlord of the said bungalow Shri Harish Tandon on this 15th day of February, 1999." 6. The aforesaid documents, in my view, leaves no manner of doubt that compromise decree dated 15.02.1979 was not in respect to small portion of land/premises in dispute but it was in respect to entire bungalow which was under the tenancy of late Justice M.C. Desai and Prescribed Authority in observing that it was only in respect to part of said building has clearly misread the relevant documents and the impugned order, therefore, cannot sustain. 7. So far as judicial orders obtained by occupants of servants' quarters are concerned, this Court is informed that the said order says that eviction/ejectment shall not be made except in accordance with law. Be that as it may, this aspect shall be looked into by respondent no. 1 and it shall pass a fresh order on petitioner's Applications No. 21B and 24B after considering the entire material on record subject to observations made above. 8. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 02.08.2005 and 02.09.2005 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to Prescribed Authority to pass a fresh order on petitioner's Applications No. 21B and 24B, expeditiously, and, in any case, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, subject to other business of the court. 9. No costs. _____________