Allahabad High Court
M/S New Libas Through Its ... vs Prescribed ... on 5 September, 2013
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
(Judgment reserved on 06.09.2013)
(Judgment delivered on 11.09.2013)
Court No. - 21
Case :- RENT CONTROL No. - 106 of 2013
Petitioner :- M/S New Libas Through Its Propritor & Another
Respondent :- Prescribed Authority,Addl.Judge,Small Causes,Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Saxena,Yogesh Saxena
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Kumar,A.B. Singh
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard Shri Ramesh Chandra Saxena learned counsel for the tenant petitioners. The accommodation in dispute is commercial in nature, situate at Hazratganj, the most expensive market of Lucknow. Petitioner is tenant of the same on behalf of landlords respondents 2 to 5 Vinay Kumar Jain and others @ Rs.300/- per month. The current monthly market rent of the property must be more than 100 times of the existing rent and this is the sole attraction for the tenant to delay the proceedings of the release application which has been filed by the landlords respondents under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the tenant for the release of the accommodation in dispute on the ground of bonafide need which has been registered as P.A. Case no. 22 of 2008, Vinay Kumar Jain & others vs. New Libas & another. All the possible provisions including the provisions provided in section 34 of the Act have been utilized by the petitioner to delay the proceedings.
Written statement was filed on 27.01.2010. Landlords got the release application amended. Petitioner tenant was given opportunity to file additional W.S. which was filed on 14.5.2012. Thereafter, tenant filed application for the amendment of the W.S. on 23.8.2012 which was rejected on 07.9.2012. Against the said order petitioner filed writ petition no. 89 (R.C.) of 2012 in which on 25.9.2012 an order was passed issuing notice to the respondents and directing that till the next date of listing the prescribed authority shall not deliver final judgement. The said writ petition is still pending.
Thereafter, petitioner filed application of inspection through some advocate commissioner on 08.10.2012. The said application was decided on 20.02.2013 and it was held by the prescribed authority that if found necessary, commission could be issued after filing of the evidence by the petitioner. Against the said order petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 33 of 2013 (R.C.). This court by a detailed judgement dismissed the same on 26.7.2013.
The petitioner thereafter adopted another tactics to delay the proceedings. He filed an application on 18.4.2013 for cross-examination of the landlords and their witnesses who had filed the affidavits. The said application was rejected by the prescribed authority/2nd additional JSCC Court No. 19 Lucknow on 05.7.2013. The order dated 05.7.2013 has been challenged through this writ petition.
In the impugned order it is mentioned that repeatedly tenant has taken the plea that landlord possess other accommodation which fact was denied by them. The prescribed authority held in the impugned order that if landlords posses any other property it could very well be proved by documentary evidence by the tenant. I don't find least error in the impugned order. Earlier the prescribed authority had passed the order that if at subsequent stage it was found necessary, commission could be issued to some advocate to inspect the alternative accommodation pointed out by the tenant to be available to landlord. The said order is under challenge in writ petition no. 89 of 2012.
It is more than evident that the only intention of the tenant is to delay the proceedings. Writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/-. Prescribed authority is directed to finalize the matter uptill the stage which is permitted by order dated 25.9.2012 passed in writ petition no. 89 R.C. of 2012 latest by the end of the year 2013. Not a single day's delay in this regard will be appreciated by this court. If tenant petitioner seeks any adjournment in any form like filing of application, it shall be granted at very heavy cost, which shall not be less than Rs.2500/- per adjournment payable before the next date, failing which the petitioner tenant shall not be permitted to participate in the proceedings.
However, if landlords seek any adjournment after coming to know of this order then this direction of imposition of cost of Rs. 2500/- per adjournment shall stand automatically recalled.
Order Date :- 11.9.2013
mks
