Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The dispute giving rise to this Special Appeal relates to a house. It belonged to one Dharam Deo Agarwal. It was let out to Jagdish Saran Rastogi, respondent No. 7. The appellant Ganesh Prasad purchased the house from Sri Dharam Deo Agarwal on 29-12-1970. Thereafter, he made an application under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to file a suit against respondent No. 7. The necessary permission was granted on 4-5-1971. It was to be operative after thirty days. The appellant, however, filed a suit for ejectment of respondent No. 7 on 6-5-1971. The parties entered into a compromise on 12-5-1971 and the same day a decree for ejectment was passed on its basis. The decree was put in execution on 21-5-1971 and the appellant obtained possession through the Court Amin on 24-5-1971. Thereafter, an objection was filed by Sri Badri Prasad Tandon, Manager, Thakur Prasad Badri Prasad Junior Girls High School, Moradabad, respondent No. 5, under Order XXI, Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the allegation that the house was occupied by the school in its own right and since it was not a party to the decree in execution of which it was dispossessed, it was entitled to be restored to possession over the house. This objection was allowed. Consequently the appellant instituted a suit under Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is said to be still pending. Simultaneously an application has also been made by Ashok Kumar Tandon, Manager of the School under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the allegation that the school had been in possession on 24-5-1971 when it was forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed in execution of a decree against respondent No. 7 to which it was not a party. On being satisfied that a dispute concerning the house, likely to cause breach of the peace, existed, the Magistrate concerned passed a preliminary order on 28-5-1971 and subsequently made a reference under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the civil court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question as to which of the parties was in possession over the house on the relevant date. The reference came up before the Munsif, Moradabad. Before the Munsif the case set up on behalf of the appellant was that the school was only a licensee of Jagdish Saran Rastogi, respondent No. 7, and was, therefore, rightly ejected in execution of the decree for ejectment against the said respondent. On this allegation it was pleaded on behalf of the appellant that the school had not been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed. Apart from the plea that it had been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed, it was also pleaded on behalf of the school that the decree in execution of which it was dispossessed was void inasmuch as the house in dispute was covered by the provisions of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, and on the date of the decree none of the grounds contemplated by Section 3 of the said Act on the basis of which the suit for ejectment against the tenant could be decreed existed. It was urged that since the permission granted under Section 3 was to be operative after 30 days of 4-5-1971 the date on which the order granting the permission was passed, the decree as passed on 12-5-1971 was illegal. This plea found favour with the Munsif and on the finding that the entire proceedings culminating in the compromise decree of 12-5-1971 were null and void, he held that the school was dispossessed forcibly and wrongfully within two months prior to the date of the preliminary order. The Munsif recorded the aforesaid finding by his order dated 1-10-1971. On receipt of the finding the Additional City Magistrate passed an order on 7-10-1971 to the effect that the house in dispute may be delivered to the school through Badri Prasad, Manager. The appellant filed a revision against the order of the Additional City Magistrate which was dismissed by the 1st Civil & Sessions Judge, Moradabad on 24-11-1971. Aggrieved he instituted a writ petition in this Court with a prayer to quash the orders passed in the proceedings. Under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 3-12-1973 on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of a suit for possession and since he had already filed a suit which was pending, H was not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is against this order that the present special appeal has been filed by Ganesh Prasad.