Allahabad High Court
Smt Sishu Sharma vs Satya Deo Maheshwari And 6 Others on 24 April, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 10 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3557 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt Sishu Sharma Respondent :- Satya Deo Maheshwari And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvanand Pandey Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Instant petition has been filed assailing the order dated 6.2.2023 passed by revisional court rejecting the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground of maintainability affirming the order dated 6.1.2023 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Aligarh by which decree holder has been directed to take steps and the Parwana has been directed to be issued fixing, 21.4.2023 as next date.
3. Facts culled out from the petition appended with the annexures are that the husband of the respondent No.1 has filed S.C.C. Case No. 48 of 1999 for eviction, arrears of rent and damages against the husband of the petitioner. Trial court vide judgment dated 18.9.2020 has decreed the suit. Revisional Court, on revision being filed on behalf of the tenant, has dismissed the revision, vide judgment dated 23.11.2022, affirming the judgment passed by the trial court. Having been aggrieved, husband of the petitioner has filed writ petition being Writ - A No. 54679 of 2002 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. Additional District Judge Aligarh). Aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by order dated 22.01.2014 granting liberty to the petitioner to vacate premises in question within a period of six months. The relevant paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition is quoted herein below :
"In view of the above, it is provided that petitioner, if file an affidavit within ten days from today before the trial court containing an undertaking that they shall vacate the premises in question and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord-respondent within six months from today, execution of judgments impugned in this writ petition shall not proceed. It is also made clear that the petitioner-tenant shall continue to pay rent of premise in question to respondent-landlord month-to-month. However, in case of any default, the above indulgence granted by this Court shall automatically cease and it would be open to landlord(s) to proceed for execution of impugned orders immediately thereafter in accordance with law. It is also provided that in case the petitioner-tenant after filing affidavit, as aforesaid, and enjoying deferment of vacation of premise in question failed to comply with any of the conditions, as aforesaid, he shall be liable to pay for such non compliance of pious undertaking given to the Court an exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- which shall also be recovered from petitioner-tenant alongwith execution proceedings, if such necessity arises."
4. Even time being granted by this Court tenant has not vacated the premises in question which compelled the landlord to file an execution case before the competent court being Execution Case No. 3 of 2013 (Stayadev Vs. Ramesh Chandra). In execution case petitioner has filed an objection under Section 47 C.P.C. which has been registered as Misc. Case No. 4 of 2014. Judge Small Cause Court, vide order dated 06.01.2023 passed in execution case, has directed for taking steps and Parwana has been directed to be issued fixing next date. The order dated 06.01.2023 is quoted herein below :-
"??? ???? ????????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ????????? ????? ????
?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?????? 21.1.2023 ?? ??? ???"
5. Having been aggrieved tenant has filed S.C.C. revision which was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
6. Having considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of records it reveals that order dated 0601.2023 is an interlocutory order by which decree holder/landlord has been directed to take steps and Parwana has been directed to be issued, fixing 21.01.2023 as the date. It appears that tenant is trying to protract the matter for one reason or another despite the order dated 22.01.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 54679 of 2002. Tenants conduct, primafacie, appears to be mala fide and in derogation to the order dated 22.01.2004 passed by this Court.
7. I did not find any illegality, perversity or the ambiguity in the order passed by revisional court as well as trial court to entertain the instant petition in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Nothing has been demonstrated as to how petitioner is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, owing to the orders under challenge.
8. In this conspectus as above, instant petition, being devoid of merits and misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to the costs.
Order Date :- 24.4.2023 Md Faisal