Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2936 (ALL)

Nandu @ Nand Lal v. Special Judge

2015-09-16

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking mandamus commanding respondent No.1 to decide the pending stay application dated 8.1.2013 (paper no.5-C) and dated 7.8.2015 (paper No. 52-C) in the Rent Control Appeal No. 15 of 2013. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that the respondent who has filed the release application is infact not the owner of the house in dispute. There is variance in the boundaries in the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.3 and the actual boundaries of the house in question. This objection has been taken in the written statement but it was not addressed by the Prescribed Authority. 4. In the appeal application has been moved to determine the question as to whether the respondent applicant is owner and landlord of the disputed accommodation, separately. 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the interim application staying eviction of the tenant from the disputed accommodation is pending since the year 2013. Earlier interim order was not granted to the tenant on the statement of the learned counsel for respondent that no execution has been filed. This order was passed on 24.1.2013. However, neither the appeal has been decided nor any interim order has been passed till date. The petitioner has come to know that now the respondent/applicant has filed execution in which the last date fixed was 15.9.2015. The petitioner had appeared before the Executing Court and is facing threat of eviction without adjudication of his case on merits. 6. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the record that the appeal is pending since 2013. The objection taken by the petitioner regarding relationship of landlord and tenant and further ownership of respondent No.3 to the premises in question is subject matter of adjudication by the Appellate court. This Court is of the opinion that there is no purpose for giving direction to decide the application moved by the petitioner separately. While framing the points for determination, the Appellate Court can entertain the said plea for adjudication. 7. So far as the interim stay application is concerned, though the execution case has been filed but there is no positive order by the Executing Court to evict the petitioner. While framing the points for determination, the Appellate Court can entertain the said plea for adjudication. 7. So far as the interim stay application is concerned, though the execution case has been filed but there is no positive order by the Executing Court to evict the petitioner. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has furnished his evidences and nothing more is required to be done and the appeal is ripe for hearing. 8. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that the lower Appellate Court shall decide the Rent Control Appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. For a period of three months or till the matter is decided, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the house in dispute provided the petitioner does not seek any adjournment in the matter. In case, any adjournment is sought, the interim protection given here will automatically be vacated. 9. With above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.