Court No. - 26
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2754 of 2018 Petitioner :- Raghupal Singh And Another Respondent :- Dayal Das And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Tiwari,Sanjay Shukla
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral).
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for a direction to the learned Appellate Court to decide Rent Appeal No. 43 of 2013 (Dayal Das Versus Raghupal Singh) pending in his court since 2013 within time stipulated by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners has stated that initially the petitioner-landlord had filed Rent Case No. 45 of 2007 (Raghupal Singh and others Vs. Dayal Das and others), which was allowed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar on 23.03.2013 directing for payment of arrears of rent and eviction on the ground of bonafide need established by the landlord.
3. The tenant-respondent thereafter filed Rent Appeal No. 43 of 2013 in which at the time of admission an application for stay of the operation of impugned order of trial Court was also filed. The said application of tenant-respondent was allowed. The learned Court below's order was stayed subject to the condition that the tenant-respondent shall continue to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as rent for the shop in question. In case there was a default in payment of rent for two months, then, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated and also in case the appellant unnecessarily delayed the disposal of appeal and the Court came to the conclusion that there was a deliberate delaying tactics adopted by the tenant-respondent, then, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated. This order was passed on 07.09.2013. The tenant-respondent thereafter filed an application under Section 34(1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 07.10.2013. This application was rejected on 09.12.2013 by the learned Appellate Court by a detailed order. Thereafter, another application was filed by the tenant-respondent namely Paper No. 23-C. Disposal of the said application took several months and repeatedly the tenant-respondent has been filing adjournment applications not letting the learned Appellate Court decide the said application; such adjournments have been allowed on payment of cost.
4. From a perusal of the copy of order sheet filed along with the writ petition it appears that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner landlord is correct. Application Paper No. 23-C has been continued to be listed for disposal and on each date adjournment has been sought by the tenant-respondent. The Paper No. 23-Ga was ultimately disposed off on 24.08.2015. The order passed earlier by the learned Appellate Court on 09.12.2013 relating to disposal of Paper No. 21-C dated 09.12.2013 has been recalled. Thereafter, continuously the matter has been listed almost every month sometimes twice a month and could not be disposed off as adjournments have been sought by the tenant- respondent.
5. On one or two occasions Presiding Officer was on leave.
6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with a direction to the learned Appellate Court below to consider the Appeal on merit and decide the same within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of parties.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 LBY