JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. These two writ petitions since raise common question of facts and law, therefore, they are heard together and decided by common judgment with the consent of the parties.
2. It is not disputed that the petitioners filed two writ petitions before this Court one being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19187 of 2004, Archana Goel v. Additional District Judge, Allahabad and another and second being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19215 of 2004, Suresh Chandra Goel v. Additional District Judge, Allahabad and another.
3. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as under :
That the respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction of tenant being S.C.C. Suit No. 99 of 1994 which is subject matter of Writ Petition No. 19187 of 2004 and S.C.C. Suit No. 100 of 1994 which is subject matter of Writ Petition No. 19215 of 2004. In the written statements filed in both the suits, no plea of payment of puggrie (premium) or security money was taken. However, by way of amendment which was allowed in the year, 1998 it was asserted that petitioner of Writ Petition No. 19187 of 2004 paid Rs. 95,000 through banker's cheque pursuant to the agreement in writing. Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 19215 of 2004 by way of amendment in written statement pleaded that he paid Rs. 1,05,000 as puggrie and Rs. 30,000 as security money in the same manner as was done by petitioner of Writ Petition No. 19187 of 2004. It is the case of the tenants of the two writ petitions that this security deposit will bear no interest and will be refundable after six months of petitioner's vacating and handing over its vacant peaceful possession to the landlords. The security was paid in the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The suits were tried by the Judge, Small Cause Court who decreed both the suits filed by the landlord and directed for eviction of the tenants. Both the tenants filed two revisions under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and both the revisions were dismissed by the revisional court by its judgment and order dated 8.4.2004, Thus, the aforesaid two writ petitions. These two writ petitions came up for hearing before this Court and this Court after considering all the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner-tenant by its Judgment and order dated 9.7.2004 held that there is no error in the judgments of the courts below and dismissed the aforesaid two writ petitions. The High Court further directed in following terms :
However, tenants are granted time till 30.6 2005, to vacate provided that within two months from today, they file undertaking before the J.S.C.C., to the effect that on or before 30.6.2005, they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the shops in dispute to the landlord-respondent. It is further directed that the entire decretal amount due till 30.6.2005 after adjusting the amount of Rs. 50,000 paid as security by petitioner of first writ petition and of Rs. 30,000 paid by petitioner of second writ petition shall be deposited before the trial court within two months by the petitioners for immediate payment to landlord-respondent. In case of default in compliance with any of the above conditions, petitioners shall be evicted from the shops in dispute in execution proceedings through process of court after two months. It was alleged by the petitioners and denied by the landlord respondent that they had paid Rs. 95,000 and 1,05,000 respectively as puggrie. No finding in this regard has been recorded by the courts below. Petitioners are at liberty to institute suit for the recovery of the said amount. If such suits are filed the Court shall decide as to whether the said amounts were paid by the petitioners to landlord respondent and shall decree the suit for recovery of the said amounts with or without interest if the Court comes to the conclusion that the said amounts were in fact advanced by the petitioners to landlord respondent.
4. After this Court dismissed the aforesaid two writ petitions, as stated above, the petitioners did not furnish undertaking, nor they handed over the possession, as directed by this Court by its judgment and order dated 9.7.2004. The petitioners took up the case to the Supreme Court by special leave petition wherein by the order dated 16.11.2004 Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to pass the following order :
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The special leave petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner is permitted to file undertaking before the High Court on or before 30th November, 2004.
5. It is alleged by the petitioner that after the special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners filed an application on 29.11.2004, for furnishing undertaking before the High Court in terms of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The High Court by its order dated 1.12.2004 accepted the undertaking, as directed by the Supreme Court to be an undertaking in continuation of the judgment dated 9.7.2004. A recall application was filed by the landlord for recall of the order dated 1.12.2004 before the High Court for modification of the order dated 1.12.2004 on the ground that the petitioners have already been dispossessed pursuant to dismissal of their writ petitions, as they did not furnish undertakings directed by this Court by its judgment and order dated 9.7.2004 before 16.11.2004 when the Apex Court was pleased to pass the order dated 16.11.2004. referred to above. This Court on 13.12.2004 on the application for recall passed the order in the following terms :
...If the petitioner has already been dispossessed before the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.11.2004 then there arises no question of filing undertaking or accepting the same. Objections of the petitioner dated. 6.11.2004 are pending before the trial court. The trial court is directed to decide the objections without being influenced by this order, however, if any executable order is passed by the trial court then the same shall not be executed without approval of this Court. Proceedings are adjourned sine die. Whenever the court below passes the order, application for revival of these proceedings along with copy of the order may be filed. The order dated 8.12.2004, staying proceedings before the trial court/executing court is vacated.
6. After the order dated 13.12.2004, was passed, the proceedings began before the executing court as directed by this Court. The executing court by the order dated 23.12.2004, directed while hearing the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the court Amin and police line moharrir may be summoned along with the documents regarding delivery of possession on 21.10.2004 and the executing court fixed 7.1.2005 as next date. The petitioners took an attempt by filing application No. 27Ga before the executing court which was rejected by the executing court by the order dated 19.2.2005. Aggrieved by the order of the executing court the petitioners preferred a revision before the revisional court which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 5.3.2005, which is now challenged in the present writ petitions. When the writ petitions came up for admission, learned Counsel for both the parties appeared and after hearing the rival contentions, this Court passed the order dated 18.5.2005, directing the petitioners to deposit the amount directed in the order before this Court pending hearing. The petitioner has deposited the amount, before this Court matter came up for hearing on 7.7.2005. An objection has been raised on behalf of counsel for the respondent-landlord that in any view of the matter, the time granted by this Court by the Judgment and order dated 9.7.2004 whereby the petitioner was directed to remain in possession subject to the conditions mentioned in the order till 30.6.2005 has elapsed therefore these petitions have now become infructuous. To this learned Counsel for the petitioner has objected and submitted that the petitions cannot be said to have become infructuous as by virtue of interim order and the order challenged in the present writ petition the question is still to be decided as to whether the petitioners were dispossessed before the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or not. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the outer limit for which the petitioners were allowed to remain in possession, even assuming that they were in possession, which is disputed by the landlord, the right which could be enforced by the petitioners was only upto 30.6.2005, therefore, after 30.6.2005 the petitioners do not have any right which could be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or any court of law.
7. I have given my considered thoughts to the rival contentions of the parties and in my opinion, the question of petitioners' remaining in possession or going back again in possession does not arise after 30.6.2005. Even assuming that the petitioners have not been evicted and that they had furnished the undertaking as per directions of the Apex Court, the maximum period for which they could have continued in possession is 30.6.2005, which was the outer time limit for vacating the accommodation in question by the petitioners by the judgment and order dated 9.7.2004, passed by this Court.
8. In this view of the matter, both the writ petitions have become infructuous by efflux of time and are dismissed as such. The interim order/orders are vacated.