Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2715 (ALL)

Praveen Kumar v. Mohd. Ishaq

2014-09-04

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lalit Kumar who has appeared for the respondent. 2 Petitioner is facing proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for release of the tenanted accommodation. In the said release application, petitioner filed an application purported to be under Section 10 C.P.C. for stay of the proceedings of the release application on the ground that the Original Suit No.275 of 2011 for the partition of the property is pending between the parties. The application has been rejected by the court below by the impugned order dated 3.10.2013. 3. In challenging the said order the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issues involved in the release proceedings are directly and substantially the same as in Original Suit No.275 of 2011. 4. The application under Section 10 C.P.C. has been filed in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The proceedings of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act are governed by the Act in respect whereof all provisions of the C.P.C. are not applicable. Section 34 of the Act provides for applying only certain provisions of the C.P.C. to the proceedings under the Act. It does not provides for application of Section 10 C.P.C. Therefore, application under Section 10 C.P.C. is not maintainable in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. 5. Secondly, basically two issues, namely, the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the bona fide of the need set up by the landlord and their comparative hardship, are involved in proceedings for release. These issues are not involved in the suit for partition. Therefore, it can not be said that the issues in the present proceedings under Section 21 of the Act are substantially and directly same as involved in the partition suit. 6. In view of above, I find no illegality in the order of the court below. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. 7. It will be open for the petitioner to apply for consolidation of both the proceedings, as may be advised.