Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2369 (ALL)

Sunil Kumar @ Sunit v. Krishna Kumar Agrawal

2016-07-08

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. – Heard Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a tenant in the shop in question bearing municipal no. 7/3, Patthar Bazar City Koli, District Aligarh. The shop in question was purchased by the respondent and his three brothers jointly vide sale deed dated 25.6.1994. In the family settlement the shop in question initially came to the share of one of the brothers Gopal Prasad Agrawal. Later, on the death of their mother in the revised family settlement between the brothers dated 1.9.2011 the shop fell into the share of the respondent Krishna Kumar Agrawal. Accordingly, he applied under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the said shop. 3. In the said release application petitioner moved application that initially Gopal Prasad Agrawal had filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction against him and in the said suit the respondent had moved application for his impeadment which was rejected by the courts below. Accordingly, he preferred SCC Revision No. 534 of 2013 which is pending for consideration before the High Court. Therefore in view of pendency of the said revision, the proceedings of the release application should be kept in abeyance. 4. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide impugned order dated 6.5.2016. 5. In challenging the aforesaid order the submission of Sri Diwakar Rai Sharma is that the question regarding rights of the respondent in the shop in dispute on the basis of which he has applied for impleadment in the SCC suit is to be decided in the above revision. Therefore until and unless the said revision is decided, it is not appropriate to proceed with the release application. 6. The respondent had applied for release of the shop in question on the ground that he is the owner and landlord of the said shop on the basis of some family settlement/partition. 7. The petitioner can very well object to the release application and raise issue of its maintainability by alleging that respondent is not the owner and that the partition, if any, between the brothers is not valid or authentic. 7. The petitioner can very well object to the release application and raise issue of its maintainability by alleging that respondent is not the owner and that the partition, if any, between the brothers is not valid or authentic. However, at this interlocutory stage for the reason that one of the brothers had earlier filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction and the application of the petitioner therein for impleadment has been rejected, there appears to be no justification to stay the proceedings of the release. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to raise necessary objection before the Prescribed Authority. Petition disposed of.