Allahabad High Court
Shravan Kumar Rastogi vs Smt. Suman Verma on 4 January, 2023
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shravan Kumar Rastogi
Respondent :- Smt. Suman Verma
Counsel for Petitioner :- Karuna Shanker Rastogi,Ram Kishor
Counsel for Respondent :- Vimal Kishore Verma,Harsh Verma
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. K.S. Rastogi, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Vimal Kishore Verma and Harsh Verma learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
With the consent of learned counsel for parties, the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself since there are no factual dispute.
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 16.12.2022 passed in Rent Appeal No.16 of 2021 whereby application for interim relief filed in rent appeal has been rejected.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is tenant of a shop of which the opposite party is landlord and she instituted Rent Case No.1 of 2012 against the petitioner under Section 21 A of the U.P. Act 13 of the 1972 which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 26.08.2021 and against which petitioner has filed Rent Control Appeal No.16 of 2021 which was admitted vide order dated 23.09.2021 but since application for interim relief was not being decided, petitioner filed petition no.4635 of 2022 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said petition was disposed of by means of order dated 29.11.2022 directing the court concerned to pass orders on the application for interim relief within a period of next six weeks after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. It is submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the impugned order has been passed rejecting application for interim relief.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a perusal of impugned order will make it evident that none of the conditions required for consideration for an application for stay has been considered while passing the impugned order and the only consideration indicated for rejection of application for stay is that the petitioner-appellant is delaying early hearing of the appeal by filing various applications including application for Commission. It is submitted that the aforesaid ground cannot be a reason for rejecting an application for interim relief particularly once appeal has already been admitted.
Reliance has been placed on judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another versus Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others; reported in (1982)3 Supreme Court Cases 484 to buttress his submission.
It is further submitted that it was imperative for the appellate court to have allowed the application for interim relief particularly in view of the fact that opposite party-landlord has already filed execution case on 30.09.2022 which is pending consideration.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the ground that the impugned order has rightly been passed considering the fact that appellant as tenant is not interested in early hearing of the matter and is delaying the same on various ground including filing various applications such as application for issuance of commission. As such, it is submitted that bonafides are not in favour of petitioner which would require any indulgence by this Court.
Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that rent appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2021 in Rent Case No.1 of 2017. It also appears that the rent appeal filed by petitioner has already been admitted by the court concerned and application for interim relief was directed by this Court to be decided within stipulated time frame. A perusal of the impugned order will make it evident that the application for interim relief has been rejected primarily on the ground that appeal was filed on 23.09.2021 and despite passing of more than one year for the same, no interest is being shown by the appellant for final disposal of some by filing various applications including the application for issuance of commission.
It is settled law that application for interim injunctions are required to be decided on the three well stated principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injuries which would be caused in case interim injunction is not granted. The impugned order does not consider any of the aforesaid three principles while rejecting the application for interim relief. The only ground of appellant not cooperating in early disposal of the appeal cannot be the sole ground for rejection of an application for interim injunction particularly when the matter pertains to immoveable property in which execution case admittedly has been filed and is pending, more so when the appeal itself has been admitted.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav had already laid down guidelines that it would be in the interest of justice that interim injunction be granted once an appeal has already been admitted.
Since the impugned order has been passed merely on the ground of non-cooperation of the appellant without considering the other required condition, this Court does not find that the order impugned has been passed in accordance with law.
In view of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 16.12.2022 passed in Rent Control Appeal No.16 of 2021, Shravan Kumar Rastogi versus Smt. Suman Verma is set aside and the matter is remitted to court concerned for decision a fresh on the application for interim relief to be decided on the parameters indicated hereinabove. The court concerned shall decide the interim injunction application afresh on the next date fixed i.e. 13.01.2023. The appellate court concerned is also directed to take appropriate steps for early disposal of the rent appeal in which the parties are directed to cooperate for the early disposal preferably within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order placed on record to the proceedings.
With the aforesaid observation and directions, the petition stands allowed at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 4.1.2023
Subodh/-
