Smt. Sushila Devi vs Iind A.D.J. & Others on 10 May, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Sushila Devi vs Iind A.D.J. & Others on 10 May, 2010

Bench: V.K.Shukla

                                                                             Court No. 21

           Civil Misc. Review/Recall Application No. 38000 of 2010

                                          In re;

                   Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8390 of 1983

                                  Smt. Sushila Devi

                                         Versus

                2nd Additional District Judge, Aligarh and others

Hon'ble V.K.Shukla,J.

In the present case, this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8390 of 1983 (Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, and others) keeping in view that litigation is ongoing since 1973 and since then more than 36 years period have elapsed, finding need of landlady to be bonafide one and also finding that balance of convenience on comparative hardship front is also tilting in favour of landlady, allowed the writ petition by quashing the order dated 24.03.1983 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Aligarh in Appeal No. 26 of 1997, Har Prasad vs. Smt. Sushila Devi and accorded six months time to vacate the premises in question and hand over its peaceful vacant possession. Against the said order in question Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (s) 35973 of 2009 has been filed before Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex Court on 11.01.2010 passed following orders which is being quoted below:

"Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Heard.

We find no merit in the special leave petition. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly. However, on the facts of the case, petitioner is granted time till 31st August, 2010 to vacate the premises in question on furnishing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today."

After the said order in question has been passed, review application in question has been filed and therein in view of the averments mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 17 of the affidavit, pertaining to shop in tenancy of Naurangi Lal judgment passed by this Court has been sought to be asked for review of the same.

In the present case each and every aspect of the matter has been examined at length including the matter in respect of Naurangi Lal then in the garb of review re-hearing cannot be permitted. Order passed by this Court on merit has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly proceeded to mention that there is no merit in the Special Leave petition and Special Leave petition was dismissed accordingly and time has been accorded to vacate the premises in question. Once in the Special Leave Petition, no merit has been found and on earlier occasion, both question of bonafide need and comparative hardship has been considered at length, including the issue of Naurangi Lal and period of long drawn litigation has also been considered and dealt with then no case at all is made out for review of the order passed by this Court, then as already mentioned above in the garb of the review re-hearing at full length cannot be permitted.

Consequently, review application is rejected accordingly. No order as to cost.

Dated 10.05.2010 Dhruv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court