Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3152 (ALL)

Mishra Mill Stores v. Arvind Kumar Gupta

2016-09-15

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. – Heard Sri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manas Bhargawa for the respondent. 2. The petition is directed against the order dated 30.8.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge in Revision No. 43 of 2015 rejecting the application of the petitioners for taking on record the additional evidence in the form of the certified copies of the plaints of Original Suits No. 2844 of 2016 and 1469 of 2014. 3. The aforesaid revision arises out of orders passed for declaring the premises in dispute to be vacant and for releasing it in favour of the respondent landlord. 4. The revisional court has rejected the application solely on the ground that the plaints of the above suits were in existence in the year 2014 when the matter was pending before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but the petitioners have not cared to file them during the trial. In other words, the application stands rejected for not filing the documents in time during trial. 5. The submission of Sri Pankaj Agrawal is that the need for filing the plaints of the aforesaid cases which have been instituted by the respondent landlord himself had arisen only after the orders declaring the vacancy and for release were passed and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the courts below. 6. Sri Manas Bhargawa, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners have no case or any right to challenge the order of release. 7. There is no dispute that the unauthorized occupant or the prospective allottee has no right to question the order of release passed in favour of landlord but the occupant of the premises who has been declared to be unauthorized consequent to which the vacancy has been declared is entitled to question the vacancy order after the order of release is passed by filing a revision. In such circumstances, the revision filed by the petitioners is required to be considered on merits. The filing of the certified copy of the plaints of the two cases instituted by the respondent landlord would have no effect on the rights of the respondent so as to cause prejudice to him except for the fact that it may delay the proceedings. The filing of the certified copy of the plaints of the two cases instituted by the respondent landlord would have no effect on the rights of the respondent so as to cause prejudice to him except for the fact that it may delay the proceedings. This could have been taken care of by laying down necessary conditions instead of refusing to take the said documents on record as part of the evidence. 8. The Court has opined that the above documents are superfluous and are not necessary for the adjudication of the controversy involved in the revision. 9. Thus, the interest of justice would be sub-served if the petitioners are allowed to file the above plaints as part of the additional evidence. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.8.2016 is quashed and the certified copies of the plaints of suit nos. 2844 of 2014 and 1469 of 2014 are permitted to be taken on record as part of the evidence. The revisional court will allow two weeks time to the respondent to rebut the above evidence, if he so desires. Thereafter, the revisional court will proceed to decide the revision in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months curtailing all unnecessary adjournments by fixing short and quick dates. In case any adjournment becomes inevitable, it shall not be allowed otherwise than by imposing cost of Rs. 1,000/- per adjournment. 11. The petition is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of.