Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3226 (ALL)

Nayab Alam v. Tanveer Sultana

2015-10-13

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. This writ petition is against the order dated 26.11.2014 passed in Misc. Execution Case No. 84/74/14 (Nayab Alam Vs. Smt. Tanveer Sultana and others), arising out of the release proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. The release application for the Premises No. 40/104A, Parade Kanpur Nagar, has been filed against M/s Usha Sales Pvt. Ltd and M/s Usha International Ltd. It was clearly therein that the tenanted accommodation is in possession of the opposite parties. The landlord needed the accommodation to start a coaching institute for Higher Education courses and competitive examinations. The boundaries of the tenanted accommodation which was subject of the release has been given at the foot of the release application. The premises were released by the Prescribed Authority on 31.05.2014. 3. An execution case No. 86/74/2014 was filed in which the petitioner has raised an objection that the boundaries given in the release application are not the actual boundaries of the tenanted accommodation. Three tin shed rooms which were in occupation of the petitioner have wrongly been included and under the garb of the release order the petitioner is being evicted. 4. The Executing Court had considered the objection and recorded that there was no dispute with regard to the boundaries of the tenanted accommodation. The entire tenement which was in occupation of M/s Usha Sales Pvt. Ltd. has been released. The right of the petitioner, if any, can only be determined in the Civil Suit no. 2197 of 2014 filed by the petitioner against the landlord. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal the record, this Court finds that the petitioner had earlier filed an original suit No. 1309 of 2013 impleading M/s Usha Sales Pvt. Ltd., M/s Usha International Ltd. Shahnjaf Road, Lucknow and M/s Usha International Ltd. Kasturba Gandhi Road, New Delhi as defendants. The relief sought in the said suit is that the defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession of the residential accommodation and shall not evict him without payment of his monetory dues. In paragraph 1 and 3 of plaint of the said suit, it is stated that the petitioner was an employee of defendant no. 3 M/s Usha International Ltd. Three servant quarters existing in House No. 40/104 Parade Kanpur Nagar had been given in possession of the petitioner for his residence. In paragraph 1 and 3 of plaint of the said suit, it is stated that the petitioner was an employee of defendant no. 3 M/s Usha International Ltd. Three servant quarters existing in House No. 40/104 Parade Kanpur Nagar had been given in possession of the petitioner for his residence. The petitioner has been asked to vacate the said premises without any notice. The suit has been filed so that the employers may not evict him without payment of his monetory dues. This suit was filed on 06.11.2013, during the pendency of the release application. The release application was decided on 31.05.2014. In this suit the petitioner has nowhere stated that there was any landlord tenant relationship between him and the respondent rather he claimed to be licencee of M/s Usha International Ltd. where he was employed. 6. After the premise was release on 24.09.2014, the petitioner has filed another suit against the present landlord which was registered as suit no. 2197 of 2014. In the plaint of said suit for the first time, a plea was taken by the petitioner that three tin shed rooms were given to him by the Predecessor of the landlady in the year 1990-91. With a view to the distinguish his accommodation from that of the M/s Usha Sales Pvt. Ltd, the petitioner stated that he got employed in M/s Usha Sales Pvt. Ltd. while residing in the tenanted accommodation and it was leased out by the landlord. 7. The averments in the plaint of original suit no. 2197 of 2014 and original suit no. 1309 of 2013 are contrary to each other. During the pendency of release, at no point of time, the petitioner stated that he was inducted by the landlady in three tin shed rooms in dispute. His admission is that he was an employee of M/s Usha Sales which was the original tenant. The averments in the earlier suit are in the nature of admission which cannot be retracted by the petitioner in the subsequent suit. Admittedly, the petitioner has been allowed to reside in the disputed accommodation being an employee of M/s Usha Sales. The petitioner did not even state that he was paying rent to M/s Usha Sales or the present landlord. Admittedly, the petitioner has been allowed to reside in the disputed accommodation being an employee of M/s Usha Sales. The petitioner did not even state that he was paying rent to M/s Usha Sales or the present landlord. Once the premises is vacated and the original tenant has been evicted, the petitioner being the licencee of the tenant cannot have any independent right to contest the release matter or the execution proceeding. 8. The records further indicate that the petitioner has not disclosed correct facts in the writ petition. He did not disclose that he had earlier filed a suit against M/s Usha Sales and withdrew the same before filing of this release application. It appears that the petitioner is a person who has been set up by the then tenant in order to stall the execution proceeding. 9. The plea taken in the application filed by the petitioner has been considered by the executing Court, there is no infirmity, in the order. In any case, petitioner has failed to prove that there was any landlord-tenant relationship between him and the landlord and, therefore, the objections raised by him in the execution proceedings could not be entertained. There is no merit in the writ petition, dismissed.