Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3326 (ALL)

Maharani Devi v. Sanjeev Kumar

2015-10-26

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Prayer in the writ petition is for the mandamus commanding the II Additional District Judge, Kasganj to decide the stay application 5-C in Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 2015 (Maharani and another vs. Sanjeev Kumar and another) within a stipulated time. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that an appeal has been filed under Section 22 of UP Act No. 13 of 1972 on 10.3.2015 against the judgment and order dated 9.2.2015 passed by the Prescribed Authority for release of the disputed shop. The contesting respondent has put in appearance in the appeal. Notice was issued to respondent No.2 who is a proforma respondent being one of the co-tenant of the disputed shop. Direction has been given by the Court below for taking steps upon respondent No.2. However, an application 10 C2 was moved for exemption of service upon respondent No.2 which was rejected on 6.5.2015 on the opposition by the contesting respondent.Steps have been taken but service could not be effected and the registered post notice has been returned back unserved. As such, three days further time was provided to take steps. Next date fixed in the appeal is 18.11.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the direction given by the Appellate Court dated 5.10.2015, steps have already been taken for service of notice upon respondent no.2. 5. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the record that the Statutory appeal has been filed by the petitioners against the order of release. Only 60 days was allowed to vacate the premises in question on 9.2.2015 and the petitioners are facing threat of eviction without determination of their rights to occupy the premises in question. 6. In view thereof, the appellate court is hereby directed to decide the stay application 5-C on the date fixed i.e. 18.11.2015 after hearing both the petitioners and the contesting respondent No.1, without insisting upon service of notice on respondent No.2, in case, he remains unserved. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.