Mankameshwari Sheetala Mata vs Santosh Kumar And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 7933 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2213 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Mankameshwari Sheetala Mata
 
Respondent :- Santosh Kumar And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kiran Gupta,Dharmendra Kumar Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner.

The relief prayed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is quoted as under:-

"I) To issue an order or direction to set-aside the impugned order dated 15.02.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), F.T.C., Varanasi in Misc. P.A. Suit No. 6 of 2017 (Santosh Kumar and others Arun Kumar Gupta) arising out of Original P.A. No. 38 of 2004 (Santosh Kumar Vs Amrit Lal Gupta)."

It reflects from the record that the landlord-respondents no. 1 to 4 has filed P.A. No. 38 of 2004, for releasing the disputed accommodation on the ground of bona fide need, which was allowed by the prescribed authority vide order dated 11.11.2010, and was affirmed in the appeal. Earlier the matter under Article 227 No. 4039 of 2017, filed by the tenant-respondent no. 4 was also dismissed vide order dated 28.7.2017, copy of the said judgment has been appended as Annexure No. 3. After this Court rejected the petition filed by the tenant-respondent, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C., seeking the joiner in the proceeding on the ground that he is the title holder of the suit property and he himself be heard before disposal of the execution proceeding. The said application has been rejected by the prescribed authority vide impugned order subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The said order was challenged before this Court on the ground that the petitioner is a necessary party and be heard before disposal of execution proceeding. It is pertinent to mention here that the cases filed before the prescribed authority for releasing the accommodation in dispute governs under Section 21 (1) A of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The proceedings are of in summery nature. It is a matter between tenant and landlord. So, the release order passed in favour of the landlord ought to have been implemented in the execution proceeding. The executing court has recorded the sufficient ground for not entertaining the application of the petitioner to implead him in execution proceeding under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C.

I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. The instant petition is totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the landlord-respondent.

Order Date :- 14.7.2021

S.K.