Allahabad High Court
Sundaram Kumar Sonkar vs Rent Authority/ Districtjudge And 5 ... on 27 May, 2024
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:97766
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1901 of 2024
Petitioner :- Sundaram Kumar Sonkar
Respondent :- Rent Authority/ Districtjudge And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Malviya
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Time Extension Application No. 3 of 2024
This is an application, filed by the petitioner, seeking extension of time of three months to vacate the tenanted premises in question.
I have heard Shri Sharad Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the landlord/respondents.
This Court vide order dated 12.03.2024 had dismissed a bunch of writ petitions including the instant writ petition finding no error or illegality having been committed by the Rent Authority as also the Rent Tribunal in allowing the application of the landlord/respondents under Section 21 (2) of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021. Subsequent to the delivery of the judgment in open Court Shri Sharad Malviya, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, in the bunch of writ petitions including the present writ petition made a mention for some reasonable time to be granted to the tenant/ petitioner to vacate the respective shops inasmuch as the petitioner carrying on their respective business, in the shop in question, for substantial period and have also stocks of their goods and they cannot shift the entire business to other shops in the wake of the fact that the Execution proceedings were already underway and Form-D had been issued.
This Court, after considering the submissions of Shri Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner, deemed it appropriate to grant reasonable time of three months to the petitioners of other petitions, including the present petitioner, from the date of the order of this Court to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the respective shops to the landlord/respondents after expiry of three months i.e. 11th June, 2024, vide order dated 13.03.2024. The petitioner was directed to continue to pay rent of the shops and not damage or let out the shop.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that against the order dated 12.03.2024, of this Court, the petitioner has filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon'ble Apex Court, Diary No. of which is 23383 of 2024. He submits that since the Summer Vacation has intervened and the Special Leave Petition could not be listed before the Apex Court, the period of three months, which is expiring on 11.06.2024 may be extended to enable the petitioner to bring the orders of the Apex Court, otherwise the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.
The application has been opposed by Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the landlord/respondents, who submits that against the order dated 12.03.2024 several Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 10671 of 2024, 10917 of 2024, 10871 of 2024, 10846 of 2024 and SLP No. 10901 of 2024, were preferred by the tenants, who were similarly placed as the petitioner/applicant, and the Apex Court vide order dated 13.05.2024 has declined to interfere with the impugned judgment and the Special Leave Petitions have been dismissed.
Shri A.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the landlord/respondent further submits that once the indulgence had been granted by the Court, by granting the petitioner three months time to vacate the premises on the understanding that vacant possession of the shop in question would be handed over to the landlord/respondent on the expiry of the three months period, no indulgence be granted to the tenant/petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 had granted the petitioner time up to 11th June, 2024 to handover the peaceful vacant possession of the shop under the tenancy on his request. The order dated 12.03.2024 has been assailed in Special Leave Petition, before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Some of the Special Leave Petitions have also been rejected as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlords.
In such view of the matter this Court is not inclined to grant any further time to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. Accordingly the application is rejected.
Order Date :- 27.5.2024
Deepak/
