Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 528 (ALL)

Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Saurabh Shaha

2015-03-20

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents-landlord. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent-landlord had filed five different release applications for five different accommodation against five different tenants and in one of the release application which was filed against the petitioner, the petitioner? had filed his written statement but the written statement filed by another tenant namely, Rajiv Gupta and his accommodation number was considered while deciding the release application of the petitioner and not the written statement which was filed by the petitioner against the release application. It is thus contended that the orders impugned passed by the Courts below? cannot be sustained inasmuch as the petitioner's written statement has not been consider but the written statement filed by another tenant Rajiv Gupta has been taken into consideration. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the aforesaid error is only typing error. Learned counsel further contends that the matter may be remanded for rectification of the error within the time stipulated by this Court. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present present this Court is of the opinion, that the matter requires consideration by the Courts below as it is evident from the reading of the judgement that written statement of another tenant has been taken into consideration by the Court below in deciding the release application filed against the petitioner-tenant. 5. Accordingly, the Judgement and order dated 24.02.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 23, in Rent Appeal No. 81 of 2013 as well as Judgement and order dated 16.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, District Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 23 of 2010 is hereby set aside and the matter be permitted to the Courts below to consider and decide afresh preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order is produced before it. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further states that the monthly rent of Rs. 54.50 per month is being paid and in another petition which is being filed against the other tenants, rent has been enhanced to Rs. 1000/- per month. 7. Accordingly, it is provided that the petitioner shall deposits Rs. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further states that the monthly rent of Rs. 54.50 per month is being paid and in another petition which is being filed against the other tenants, rent has been enhanced to Rs. 1000/- per month. 7. Accordingly, it is provided that the petitioner shall deposits Rs. 1000/- per month as rent of the premises in question during the pendency of the proceedings before the Courts below, before the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar by 7 of each calender month. The monthly rent as mentioned above is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents-landlord after due verification. 8. In case of default, appropriate orders may be passed by passed by the Court below. 9. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed off.