Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Saxena vs Ashok Kumar on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7968 of 2022
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Saxena
Respondent :- Ashok Kumar
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra,Akanksha Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Shalini Goel,Ashish Bansal,Rama Goel Bansal
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
This is a tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 31.3.2022 passed by the Additional District Jude, Court No.10, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as, 'Appellate Court') in Rent Control Appeal No. 27 of 2021 whereby the appellate court has allowed the appeal and, consequently, Prescribed Authority Case No. 228 of 2020 registered under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1972').
The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent - landlord instituted P.A. Case No. 228 of 2020 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, 1972 for eviction of the petitioner - tenant from shop No. A-3/2 Gandhi Nagar Rampur Road, Moradabad on the ground that the premises was bona fide required by the landlord for the office of his son Mohit Agrawal who was a registered Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The case was contested by the tenant - petitioner alleging that the son of the landlord had not been issued a certificate of practice by the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council and, therefore, was not entitled to practice in any court at the time of the institution of the case and, therefore, the case was liable to be dismissed. The Prescribed Authority, Moradabad vide its judgment and order dated 7.9.2021 dismissed P.A. Case No. 228 of 2020. Against the judgment and order dated 7.9.2021 passed by the Prescribed Authority, the respondent - landlord filed Rent Control Appeal No. 27 of 2021 under Section 22 of the Act, 1972. The appellate court after taking into consideration the fact that Mohit Agrawal, the son of respondent - landlord, had been issued a certificate of practice by the Bar Council on 22.7.2021 allowed the said appeal. The appellate court has also reasoned that a certificate of practice only entitles the registered Advocate to file his Vakalatnama and represent a litigant in the court and absence of a certificate of practice does not debar the registered Advocate from otherwise starting the practice. On the aforesaid reasons, the appellate court allowed Rent Control Appeal No. 27 of 2021 vide its order dated 31.3.2022. The fact that the son of the landlord - respondent has been issued a certificate of practice by the Bar Council on 22.7.2021 has not been denied by the tenant - petitioner.
There is no perversity or any other illegality in the impugned order dated 31.3.2022 passed by the appellate court. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
After the order was dictated, the counsel for the petitioner prayed for some time to vacate the demised premises.
Considering the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner - tenant shall not be evicted from the disputed premises till 31.12.2022 in pursuance to the order dated 31.3.2022 if he files an undertaking, supported by his affidavit, within one month from today undertaking to vacate the premises by 31st December, 2022 and handover the possession of the same to the landlord - respondent. On failure of the petitioner - tenant to file an undertaking as aforesaid or to vacate the premises by 31st December, 2022, the court below shall proceed in accordance with law for enforcement of the order dated 31.3.2022 passed by the appellate court and the said order shall be enforced within one month from the date of application for the said purpose being filed by the respondent - landlord.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.7.2022
Satyam
