Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 309 (ALL)

Gujiya v. Teepu Singh

2015-02-16

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.1.2014 and 17.1.2015 passed by Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur in Misc. Suit No. 17 of 2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents filed P.A. Case No. 36 of 2010 for eviction of the petitioners-tenant from the disputed premises, in which the petitioners put in appearance through counsel but thereafter the petitioner No. 1 could not appear as she was old lady and was ailing, therefore, an ex parte order was passed on 03.10.2011 against the petitioners. It is next contended that when the petitioner No. 1 recovered from her ailment, she filed an application for recall of the ex parte order on 09.12.2011, which has been rejected, against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner No. 1, which has also been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as the petitioner No. 1 was old ailing lady and therefore, she could not appear and as soon as she came to know about the ex parte order, she moved application along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which has been illegally rejected. It is next contended that the petitioner No. 1 has expired and petitioner No. 2 is her son. 4. Perusal of the orders impugned shows that a bald submission was made that the petitioner No. 1 was ailing but without any supporting document, therefore, the application was rejected. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the orders impugned as well as the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioners could not make out any good ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders impugned. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is hereby refused. 7. Present petition lacks merit and is dismissed.? No order as to costs. 8. After the order was dictated learned counsel for the petitioners prays that some time may be given to the petitioners for vacating the premise in question. 9. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is hereby refused. 7. Present petition lacks merit and is dismissed.? No order as to costs. 8. After the order was dictated learned counsel for the petitioners prays that some time may be given to the petitioners for vacating the premise in question. 9. Accordingly, six months from today is granted to the petitioner No. 2 for vacating the premises in question subject to payment of monthly rent, month by month? on 10th of each calendar month till handing over the actual possession to the respondent-landlord and also the petitioner No. 2 shall give an undertaking on oath before the court below within fifteen days from today with regard to vacation of the premises in question within six months. 10. The amount of rent so deposited by the petitioner No. 2 may be permitted to be withdrawn by the landlords. 11. In case of default of conditions mentioned above, this protection granted to the petitioner NO. 2 shall automatically stand vacated.