Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1214 (ALL)

Bhanu Prakash Chaturvedi v. Jairani

2015-05-13

ADITYA NATH MITTAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 04.05.2015, passed by the opposite party no.8 in P.A. Execution Case No.02 of 2013; Smt. Ganga Devi (deceased) & others vs. Prakash Gun House and others. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Writ Petition No.121 (R/C) of 2013; (Bhanu Prakash Chaturvedi Vs. Smt. Jairani and others) is pending before this Court against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2004 and 26.04.2013 and the application for interim relief is also pending in the said petition. It has also been submitted that the learned court below has committed an error of law by not serving the order in Form-C upon the petitioner directing him to vacate the same and in view of the provisions of Rule 14, the Form-D cannot be issued. It has also been submitted that it was the mistake of lawyer of the petitioner that he has not moved an application for adjournment. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.05.2015 is liable to be set aside. 4. As per the petitioner himself, the Writ Petition No.121 (R/C) of 2013 is already pending before this Court, in which, no interim order has been passed. In view of the fact that when there is no interim order of this Court, the court below is at its liberty to proceed with the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly emphasized the non-compliance of Rule 14 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, which provides as under: - "14. In view of the fact that when there is no interim order of this Court, the court below is at its liberty to proceed with the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly emphasized the non-compliance of Rule 14 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, which provides as under: - "14. Enforcement of order of allotment or release (Section 16 (4)- Where any building about to fall vacant is allotted or released under Section 16(1), proceedings for putting the allottee or the landlord, as the case may be, in possession shall be taken by the District Magistrate only after the building has actually fallen vacant or is held by him through an inquiry conducted in that behalf to have fallen vacant, and an order in Form-C shall be served upon the person or persons found in unauthorised occupation of the building directing him or them to vacate the same and deliver vacant possession thereof to the person named in the order within such period as may be specified in the order, which shall in no case be less than a week from the date of service of the order upon him, and on his failure to comply with the order within the time allowed, the District Magistrate shall issue an order to the officer-in-charge of the Police Station in Form-D directing him to get the building vacated and to put the allottee or the landlord in possession of the building". 6. The perusal of the aforesaid Rule 14 reveals that it relates to the building which is about to fall vacant or has been released under Section 16 (1) of the Act.? Admittedly, the said building has not been released under Section 16 (1) of the Act, but it has been released under Section 21 of Act No.13 of 1972. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court below has committed any error of law by not following the provision of Rule 14 of the Rules. 7. As far as the impugned order is concerned, the order of vacation was passed by the judgment and order dated 07.04.2004 passed by the Prescribed Authority, which was challenged in the appeal and the appeal has also been dismissed on 26.04.2013. 7. As far as the impugned order is concerned, the order of vacation was passed by the judgment and order dated 07.04.2004 passed by the Prescribed Authority, which was challenged in the appeal and the appeal has also been dismissed on 26.04.2013. Against which, the writ petition has been filed and no interim order has been passed. 8. Perusal of the impugned order also reveals that the petitioner was seeking adjournment for the last one year before the court below, but had not filed any objection on the application for issuing Form-D. Even the petitioner has not informed the court below that the said writ petition is pending before this Court, which goes to show that the petitioner is not coming with clean hands. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to justify the fact that why the objections were not filed before the court below after taking so many adjournments. Even on the date of order, any adjournment was not prayed by the petitioner. I also do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the counsel of lower court had not filed the adjournment application despite of the instructions of the petitioner. 9. Learned court below has considered all aspects of the matter in detail and it appears that the petitioner only wants to linger on the execution proceedings regarding which the eviction order has been passed in the year 2004. I also do not find any error of law or perversity in the impugned order because ample opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner who could have filed the objection or even the adjournment. 10. The Superior Courts are not meant for putting hindrances in the lawful proceedings conducted by the Subordinate Courts. Any party to the proceedings cannot be permitted indefinite adjournments and the case has not to be decided as per the wishes of the parties who wants to delay the proceedings. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the said orders because Rule 14 of the Rules, 1972 does not apply in the present case. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is misconceived, deserves to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.