Allahabad High Court
Manas Goswami vs State Of U.P. And 11 Others on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Manoj Misra, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17715 of 2021 Petitioner :- Manas Goswami Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vineet Sankalp Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents; Sri Vineet Sankalp for the respondent no.4 and perused the record.
The case of the petitioner is that he is tenant of an accommodation which consists of two rooms and a chabutra. The landlord tried to illegally evict the petitioner as a result whereof the petitioner instituted Suit No. 580 of 1998 for permanent injunction in which an interim injunction was granted on 01.08.1998 which was affirmed in Misc. Appeal No. 221 of 1998 vide order dated 07.09.2001. The landlord, however, filed Suit for ejectment and arrears of rent (S.C.C. Suit No. 13 of 1998) which was decreed on 19.04.2005 against which Revision No. 222 of 2005 was filed which was dismissed. But, as the decree did not relate to the entire premises let out, objection was taken by the petitioner in Execution Case No. 1 of 2006 which was rejected by order dated 09.06.2010. Later, in the execution proceeding, a report of the Ameen was submitted that he could not execute the decree as there was discrepancy in the description of the property from the spot. However, despite that execution court passed order against the petitioner against which proceeding under Article 227 are pending in this Court. Other than that, the petitioner filed suit for cancellation of the decree and permanent injunction which was registered as O.S. No. 1125 of 2010. In that suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed which was rejected by order dated 28.09.2011 against which Misc. Appeal No. 124 of 2011 was filed.
It is further the case of the petitioner that the landlord sold part of the property to the 8th respondent and thereafter the remaining part was sold to 9th and 10th respondents. Those subsequent purchasers have also been impleaded in the suit.
The grievance of the petitioner that the newly impleaded defendants have demolished part of the constructions and have dumped the rubble over the disputed property as also in front of the gate to ensure that the ingress and egress gets affected and have also damaged the grill/shutter with the aid of anti-social elements. It has been submitted that the local administration including the police and the municipal corporation is not coming to the rescue of the petitioner despite applications.
The prayer in the petition is to command the second respondent to provide police aid to the petitioner for protection from respondents 9 to 12 and to enable the petitioner to open his shop after repairing the shutter and channel. A further direction is sought upon the District Administration including Municipal Corporation to refrain from illegal activity in collusion with private respondents.
As it is not in dispute that the parties are litigating in civil courts and in the subsequent suit instituted by the petitioner for cancellation of eviction decree and for injunction, the prayer for interim injunction was rejected, if there is any interference by the private respondents in exercise of petitioner's right to property, it would be appropriate that the petitioner addresses the same by moving an application in those pending proceedings and pursue those proceedings to their logical conclusion.
A parallel examination of the claim of the petitioner in the writ jurisdiction would not be appropriate particularly when that claim is yet to be adjudicated by the civil court which is seized of the matter. We, therefore, decline to entertain this petition though we leave it open to the petitioner to pursue the civil proceedings pending in the civil courts.
It is expected that if the petitioner moves an urgency application for taking up the matter by the Civil Court, if the urgency is disclosed, the Civil Court would take up the matter as an urgent case in the order of priority with other pending urgent matters.
With the aforesaid observations and liberty, this petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 5.8.2021 A.V. Singh/Sunil Kr Tiwari