Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1681 (ALL)

Geeta Srivastava v. Kailash Chandra Singhal

2017-07-18

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. 1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. The applicant has filed the present application with the prayer to transfer the Rent Control Appeal No. 30 of 2014 (Smt. Geeta Srivastava v. Dr. Kailash Chandra Singhal), pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Court No. 14), Kanpur Nagar to another adjacent District and to stay further proceeding of the aforesaid appeal. 3. The applicant who is tenant in the disputed house, had filed Original Suit No. 1061 of 2012 (Smt. Geeta Srivastava v. Dr. Kailash Chandra Singhal) in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kanpur Nagar for specific performance on the ground that an agreement to sale was executed between his father-in-law late Kailash Chandra Srivastava and the opposite party and a sum of Rs. 1,00000/- was paid as advance. The said suit was dismissed by judgment and order dated 30.1.2014. 3.1. The applicant is a tenant in the disputed house No. 24/63, Birhana Road, Kanpur Nagar The opposite party claiming himself to be the owner and landlord of the said house instituted a Rent Case No. 16 of 2011 (Dr. Kailash Chandra Singhal v. Smt. Geeta Srivastava) under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court No. 3, Kanpur for eviction of the applicant herein, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 30.1.2014. Against the said order the applicant-tenant filed a Rent Appeal No. 30 of 2014 (Smt. Geeta Srivastava v. Dr. Kailash Chandra Singhal) in the court of District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, which is pending. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the opposite party that at present the appeal is at the argument stage. However, the applicant herein/tenant filed an amendment application, which was rejected by order dated 28.4.2016. Thereafter, the applicant has moved the present transfer application praying to transfer the aforesaid Rent Appeal No. 30 of 2014, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar to another District. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the son of the opposite party is a practising advocate and, therefore, under his pressure the amendment application was rejected and, therefore, the case may be transferred. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the son of the opposite party is a practising advocate and, therefore, under his pressure the amendment application was rejected and, therefore, the case may be transferred. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the present transfer application is an abuse of the process of Court and has been filed to somehow delay the conclusion of the appeal. He submits that the appeal is fixed for final argument, but the applicant-tenant is continuously avoiding to argue the case. He therefore, submits that the present transfer application deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. 8. The submissions made by the opposite party are supported by documents filed along with petition being Petition No. 4091 of 2017 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is connected with this transfer application. 9. Perusal of record of the aforesaid petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, filed by the opposite party shows that the applicant herein has filed this application to somehow delay the conclusion of the appeal. 10. Under the circumstance, I do not find any good reason to transfer the case as prayed by the applicant. 11. Consequently, this transfer application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/- which the applicant shall pay to the opposite party within a month from today.