Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2746 (ALL)

Gyanender Kumar Sharma v. State of U. P

2017-11-27

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.8.2017 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Ghaziabad in S.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2015, Jogendra Kaur Versus Gyanender Kumar filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 3. By the impugned order Application Paper No. 24C has been rejected. In the aforesaid application it was claimed that M/s Sharma Gas is the tenant in the godown whereas the suit has been filed against Gyanendra Kumar Sharma in his individual capacity whereas infact the firm is the tenant in the shop and it was claimed that the notice should have been sent to M/s Sharma Gas through its proprietor on the address of the office of the firm and not to the proprietor Gyanendra Kumar Sharma on his residential address and as such the proper party has not been impleaded and the notice has also not been served on the firm therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in such circumstances where the firm M/s Sharma Gas has been given the property in question on rent therefore, M/s Sharma Gas is at least a necessary party and notice should have been served on the office of M/s Sharma Gas situated at Shop No. 1 Rajendra Nagar Mohannagar Ghaziabad and the godown situated at 252 Rajendra Nagar Industrial Area Mohannagar Ghaziabad and as such when the notice has been served on Gyanendra Kumar Sharma on his residential address the same is not a valid notice and therefore, the suit is liable to be set aside. It was further pointed out that an injunction suit was filed by M/s Sharma Gas wherein interim injunction application was rejected and ultimately in Writ C No. 64662 of 2012, M/s Sharma Gas Vs. Jogendra Kaur until further orders of this Court dispossession of the petitioner from the disputed accommodation otherwise than in accordance with law was stayed. Submission therefore, is that the application has wrongly been rejected. 5. I have heard the submissions and have perused the record. 6. Jogendra Kaur until further orders of this Court dispossession of the petitioner from the disputed accommodation otherwise than in accordance with law was stayed. Submission therefore, is that the application has wrongly been rejected. 5. I have heard the submissions and have perused the record. 6. On perusal of record, I find that the suit has been filed on the ground that property situated at 252 Rajendra Nagar Industrial Area Mohannagar Ghaziabad covered by tin shed was given on rent for the purpose of godown of gas agency of which the defendant is the owner. It is no where indicated that the property in question was given on rent to the firm and not to Gyanendra Kumar Sharma. On the contrary the record reflects that prima-facie Gyanendra Kumar Sharma had contacted the plaintiff and had taken the property on lease for the purpose of having a godown on the property in question therefore, the property was given on lease to Gyanendra Kumar Sharma only and not to the firm. Further, in the injunction order granted by this Court it was provided that the until further orders of this Court the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the disputed accommodation otherwise than in accordance with law. The present proceedings have been initiated for rent and eviction by instituting SCC suit. In such view of the matter, such injunction matter would not come in way of the present proceedings. 7. Under such circumstances, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned herein. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.