Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 207 (ALL)

Amar Nath Verma v. Sanjay Kumar and Another

2013-01-16

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2013
Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and is being decided finally. 2. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 17.01.2011 and 03.02.2011 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional City Magistrate (Vth) Kanpur Nagar in Suit No. 23 of 2010 as well as revisional order dated 02.02.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 10 of 2011. 3. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts and learned counsel for the petitioner finding it difficult to assail the same, stated that petitioner may be allowed a reasonable time to vacate the premise in question. 4. Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel appearing for respondents-landlords stated that the landlords have also suffered sufficiently and though in principle did not object the request of petitioner for granting reasonable time but requested this Court that in ascertaining this time the Court may take into consideration the hardship and difficulties already suffered by respondents in commencing, conducting and pursuing the proceedings in question. 5. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also with the consent of learned counsel for the parties I find it appropriate that petitioner may be allowed six months' time to vacate the premise in question. Sri Dinesh Pathak, Advocate appearing for petitioner also stated that petitioner undertakes to vacate the premise within aforesaid period. 6. In view of the above, it is provided that petitioner, if file an affidavit within ten days from today before the Trial Court containing an undertaking that he shall vacate the premises in question and hand over its vacant possession to the landlords-respondents within six months from today, execution of judgments impugned in this writ petition shall not proceed. It is also made clear that the petitioner-tenant shall continue to pay rent of premise in question to respondents-landlords month-to-month. However, in case of any default, the above indulgence granted by this Court shall automatically cease and it would be open to landlord(s) to proceed for execution of impugned orders immediately thereafter in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the petitioner-tenant shall continue to pay rent of premise in question to respondents-landlords month-to-month. However, in case of any default, the above indulgence granted by this Court shall automatically cease and it would be open to landlord(s) to proceed for execution of impugned orders immediately thereafter in accordance with law. It is also provided that in case the petitioner-tenant after filing affidavit, as aforesaid, and enjoying deferment of vacation of premise in question failed to comply with any of the conditions, as aforesaid, he shall be liable to pay for such non compliance of pious undertaking given to the Court an exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- which shall also be recovered from petitioners-tenants alongwith execution proceedings, if such necessity arises. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents contended that petitioner has already vacated the premises in question but Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel appearing for petitioner expressed his ignorance about this. 8. In view of above, it is further provided that in case the petitioner-tenant had already vacated the premises in question, this order shall not entitled him to seek further possession of premises and this petition shall stand dismissed without any indulgence with regard to time, granted above. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is dismissed. Sudhir Agarwal, J.— This is an application for recall of my order dated 09.11.2012 whereby the writ petition was dismissed in default. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of this application. The cause shown for absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, when the case was called in the revised list, is sufficient. The order dated 09.11.2012 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. The application is, accordingly, allowed. _____________