Uttarakhand High Court
F.C.I. Institute Of Management & Anr vs K.B. Garg on 4 March, 2024
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.537 of 2024
F.C.I. Institute of Management & Anr. ...... Petitioner
Vs.
K.B. Garg ..... Respondent
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioners
04.03.2024
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
Petitioners have approached this Court seeking
the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
07.02.2024 passed by learned Judge, SCC/6th
Additional District Judge, Dehradun in SCC
Execution Case No.269 of 2017 K.B. Garg vs.
F.C.I. Institute of Management & Another.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants
would submit that the respondent/landlord had filed a
SCC Suit No.64 of 2015 against the petitioners/tenants
seeking decree of ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and
mesne profit; that, vide judgment dated 10.07.2017, suit
was decreed in favour of the respondent/landlord; that,
being aggrieved, petitioners/tenants filed a revision before
this Court, which was disposed of vide judgment dated
20.09.2017 with direction that the petitioners/tenants
shall deposit the entire arrears of rent @ Rs.80,000/- per
month w.e.f. 27.11.2015 till 26.09.2017 within three
weeks and that from 27.09.2017 onwards, the
revisionist/tenant will continue to pay the rent at such
rate till 30.06.2018 and further that within three weeks
the revisionist will furnish an undertaking before the
Court below to vacate the demised tenanted premises
latest by 30th June, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants
would submit that pursuant to judgment dated
20.09.2017 passed in revision, petitioners/tenants vacated
the demised premises on 30th June, 2018, however, the
respondent/landlord put the decree into execution by
filing SCC Execution Case No.269 of 2017 on 06.11.2017.
He would submit that the respondent/landlord also filed
an application paper no.43C for attachment of goods,
furniture and car of petitioners/tenants and to put them
into prison, which has been allowed by the Execution
Court vide impugned order dated 07.02.2024. Hence, this
writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants
would submit that there is an error apparent on the face of
record in the judgment dated 20.09.2017 passed in Civil
Revision No.116 of 2017, therefore, the petitioners/tenants
are also planning to file review application along with delay
condonation application for reviewing and clarifying the
judgment dated 20.09.2017 passed in Civil Revision
No.116 of 2017.
5. Having heard the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioners/tenants and on perusal of
material available on record, in the considered opinion of
this Court, the execution case has been filed by the
respondent/landlord for due compliance of judgment
dated 20.09.2017 passed in revision which was not
challenged by the petitioners/tenants at that relevant
point of time. Having said so, this Court does not find any
ground for interference with the impugned order.
6. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
04.03.2024
Rajni
