Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Manish Kumar , learned counsel for opposite party no.1 , Sri P.S. Mehra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Murtaza H. Khan learned counsel for opposite parties no. 5 and 6.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.2.2009 ( Annexure no.2) passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ City Magistrate, Lucknow and order dated 14.5.2010 ( Annexure no.1) passed by Additional District Jude, Court no.13 , District Lucknow.
Controversy in the present case relates to ground floor of house no. 80/22/1, Bansmandi Gurudwara road, Police Station Naka Hiindola , Lucknokw known as 11 Devendrapuri, Lucknow. ( hereinafter referred to as ' premises in question') Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises in question belongs to Late Pandit B.M. Tripathi and as per his will , a society has been constituted known as Late Pandit B.M. Tripathi Memorial Society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, bearing registration no. 265 of 1987-88 having its registered office at House No. H-1 Near Law College Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi , thereafter in the year 1999 Society has given ground floor/ premises in question in the tenancy of the petitioner.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially in respect to premises in question, allotment application has been moved by one Smt. Purinder Kaur Oberoi. Accordingly a case no. 419 of 1999 was registered before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ City Magistrate, Lucknow.
In the said matter, Smt. Veena Shukla/ opposite party no.4, Secretary of the society, given a statement that premises in question belongs to society as such provisions under Section 2(1) (f) of the U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting , Rent and Eviction ) Act 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as an 'Act'), are not applicable, so the application for allotment moved by Smt. Purinder Kaur Oberoi is liable to be rejected accordingly by order dated 13.8.1999 Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ City Magistrate, Lucknow rejected the said application.
Thereafter due to financial constraint, a decision was taken by the Society to sold house in which premises in question lies for the said purpose, Smt. Veena Shukla/ Secretary of the Society sought permission from the Competent Authority/ District Judge, Varanasi but not accorded. In spite of the said fact by virtue of sale deed dated 30.6.2006 ( C.A-1) she sold the house in question to Smt. Amar Tripathi / opposite party no.2 without any authority thus the said act is a fraudulent one on the part of opposite party no.4 on the basis of sale deed Smt. Amar Tripathi/opposite party no.2 moved an application for release of premises in question under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. A case has been registered as case no. 138 of 2008 (Smt. Amar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P.) before opposite party no.1.
In the said matter, on behalf of the petitioner an objection was taken that as per provisions of Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act, release application not maintainable because premises in question belongs to society, further sale deed executed by Smt. Veena Shukla in favour of opposite party no.2 is an act which amount to a fraud so the proceedings of release on the basis of sale-deed are without jurisdiction, liable to be dismissed.
Opposite parties no. 5 and 6 (Smt. Neha Baijal and Smt. Meenu Baijal) also filed objection before opposite party no.1 that an agreement of sale dated 29.10.1999 has been executed by Smt. Veena Shukla/ opposite party no.4 in their favour in respect to the house in which premises in question exist. So the proceedings of release application is not maintainable in view of the said facts.
Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the aforesaid objections, opposite party no.1 by order dated 12.2.2009 released the premises in question in favour of opposite party no.2 challenge by way of revision under Section 18 of the Act , registered as Revision no. 2 of 2009 (Rachna Baijal Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ City Magistrate Lucknow and others) and the main plea/stand taken by the petitioner that in view of the provision of Section 2(1) (f) of the Act , rent control act is not applicable. However, without considering the same , in most illegal and arbitrary manner, Additional District Judge, Lucknow/ opposite party no.7 vide order dated 14.5.2010 dismissed the revision. Hence the present writ petition has been filed.
In view of the above said factual background, the arguments advanced by Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, in nut shell, are summarized as under:-
(A) The premises in question belongs to a Society known as Pandit B.M.Tripathi Memorial Society and the petitioner is a tenant of the society so as per the provisions of Section 2 (1)(f) of the Act , Rent Control Act is not applicable, release application moved by opposite party no.2 liable to be dismissed.
(B) The next arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that Smt. Veena Shukla/ opposite party no.4 has got no authority to execute the sale-deed in favour of opposite party no.2 as necessary permission was not granted by the competent court thus, the sale-deed executed by her is void abnatio rather an act amounts to fraud so opposite party no.2 has got no authority to move the release application on the basis of sale-deed in the capacity of landlady, accordingly action on the part of the opposite party no.1, allowing the same is an action illegal and arbitrary, liable to be set aside. In this regard he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satyendra Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others , AIR 1988 SC 676/1988 SCC & Full Bench Rent Case 135.
(C) Another point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in respect to the premises in question one Smt. Purinder Kaur Oberoi moved an application for allotment, accordingly a case no. 419 of 1999 (Smt. Purinder Kaur Oberoi Vs. Smt. Veena Shukla) registered before opposite party no.1 in which Smt. Veena Shukla / opposite party no.4 in the capacity of Secretary of the Society given a statement that premises in question belongs to society, the Rent Control Act is not applicable, taking into consideration the said fact application for allotment moved by Smt. Purinder Kaur Oberoi, rejected vide order dated 13.8.1999, hence subsequent application for release moved by opposite party no.2 under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act is not maintainable before the same authority as per principles of res judicata, liable to be dismissed. In order to support the said argument, he has placed reliance in the case of Mohd. Shamim Vs. Additonal District Judge and others Manu/UP/0622/2009.
(D) Last arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once an objection has been taken on behalf of the petitioner before opposite party no.1 that in view of the provisions of Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act, the premises in question belongs to Society, so an application for release moved by opposite party no.2 is not maintainable, be decided as preliminary issue but opposite party no.1 failed to decide it as preliminary issue the said action rendered impugned order dated 12.2.2009 without jurisdiction and void abnatio as per law laid down in the case of Ceylon Biscuits Ltd. Vs. Bakemans Industries (p) Ltd and others (2004) 13 SCC 575, Arun Agarwal Vs. Nagreeka Exports ( P) Ltd. and another ( 2002) 10 SCC 101 and K. Kamaraja Nadar Vs. Kunju Thevar and others, AIR 1958 SC 687. Accordingly, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders under challenge in the present writ petition, are liable to be set aside.
Sri Murtaza H. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no. 5 and 6 submits that in respect to the house/premises in question an agreement to sell has been executed by Smt. Veena Shukla in the capacity of Secretary of the Society so application for release moved by opposite party no.1 is not maintainable under law., thus, the orders passed by the court below challenged in the instant case by the petitioner, are liable to be set aside.
Sri P.S. Mehra and Sri Vimlesh Kumar Tripathi learned counsels for opposite party no.2 submits that by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 30.6.2006 executed by Smt. Veena Shukla/ opposite party no.4 became landlady of the premises in question accordingly release application moved by her under Section 16 (1) (b) of the act is maintainable in view of the fact that sale-deed has not been challenged before competent court of law by the petitioner or by any other person till date, the validity of sale-deed cannot decide/adjudicate by the authorities/ courts constituted under the Act, so there is no bar of Section 2 (1)(f) of the Act as such the orders under challenged,are perfectly valid, needs no interference.
Sri P.C. Mehra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 further submits that so for as the matter relates to agreement to sell in respect to the premises in question by Smt. Veena Shukla in favour of opposite parties no. 5 and 6 is concerned has no relevancy because sale-deed dated 30.6.2006 has not been challenged by them before any competent court of law nor they have filed any suit on the basis of agreement to sale till date. Accordingly, the orders passed by two courts below are perfectly valid, writ petition liable to be dismissed as this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate or re-evaluate the evidence on its own motion and set aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it is appropriate to have a glance to relevant provisions, under the Rent Control Act which governs the field in question, the same are quoted hereunder:-
"2.Exemption from operation of Act (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to [the following , namely];-
(f) any building built and held by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ( Act No. XXI of 1860) or by a Co-operative Society, company or firm and intended solely for its own occupation or for the occupation of any of its officers or servant,s whether on rent or free of rent or as a guest house ,by whatever name called, for the occupation of persons having dealing with it in the ordinary course of business.
16. Allotment and release of vacant building- (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act , the District Magistrate may by order-
(b) release the whole or any part of such building , or any land appurtenant , thereto, in favour of the landlord ) to be called a release order)
38. Act to override T.P. Act and Civil Procedure Code- the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Transfer of property Act, 1882 ( Act no. IV of 1882) , or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( Act no. V of 1908)"
In addition to above said provisions under U.P. Act no .13 of 1972 , provisions under Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C. is also to be taken into consideration while deciding the dispute involved in the present case.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION ON SUBMISSION No. (A) & (B) As per admitted facts, the house in which premises in question is situated belongs to a Society known as Pandit B.M. Tripathi Memorial and Smt. Veena Shukla is a Secretary of the Society (daughter of Pandit B.M. Tripathi) and petitioner is a tenant of the society . Subsequently, house/ premises in question sold by Smt. Veena Shukla/ opposite party no.4 by way of registered sale deed dated 30.6.2006 in favour of Smt. Amar Tripathi/opposite party no.2. Thereafter an application under Section 16(1) (b) of Act no. 13 of 1972 moved by opposite party no.2 for release of premises in question before opposite party no.1 registered as P.A. Case no. 138 of 2008 (Smt. Amar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and another) .
In view of the above said fact , the arguments advanced by Sri Gaurv Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the garb of sale-deed dated 30.6.2006 release application moved by opposite party no.2 in the capacity of landlady is not maintainable under law because the same has been executed by Veena Shukla/ opposite party no.4 without any authority rather by way of fraud as she has not taken necessary permission for executing the same from the competent authority mandatory under law so even after execution of sale-deed which is void document, the provisions of Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act are applicable and she is tentant of his society is wholly misconceived and incorrect arguments as in the instant case , the sale-deed in question has neither been challenged by the petitioner nor any other person before the competent civil court accordingly after the execution of sale-deed Smt. Amar Tripathi/opposite party no.2 is the landlady and the application moved by her for release under Section 16(1) (b) of the Act is fully maintainable because it is settled proposition of law that the authorities under Rent Control Act cannot adjudicate the validity of sale-deed in release proceedings in the manner as done in regular civil matter .
The Hon'ble the Apex Court in Smt. Ramti Devi Vs. Union of India , (1995) 1 SCC 198 has held that a duly registered document remains valid and binds the parties until the document is avoided or cancelled by proper declaration. The aforesaid observation was made in connection with the plea raised by the appellant therein to have the document avoided or cancelled which necessarily, a declaration has to be given by the Court in that behalf . So is the case here.
In the case of Raghunath Prasad Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Nanital and others , 1982 Allahabad Rent Cases, 120 this Court has held as under:-
"The courts below have also commented upon the title claimed by the two parties over the disputed accommodation. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rightly said that it is a matter for the Civil Court to decide in appropriate proceedings. The revisional court has also said the same thing though it has also observed that prima facie the petitioner does not have any valid claim to the property. The observations of the court below that the question of title could not be decided finally in these proceedings appear to be correct and call for no interference. The courts below obviously could not finally dispose of the question of title involved in the case. The question whether the petitioner is the owner of the property or not can be properly decide only in a regular civil court or other appropriate proceedings . I am , hence making no comments on the finding given by the revisional court with regard to the claim of title raised by the petitioner."
In Panna Lal Vs. Dr. Raj Kumar Singh , 1988 (1) ARC 123, it has been held that Court cannot go into the question of proof of Will in release proceedings in the same manner as is done in regular civil or testamentary matters.
In Khem Chand Vs. IV th Additonal District Judge, Bulandshahr, 1989(2) ARC 344, it has been held that genuineness of the partition decree passed by a civil court cannot be decided in a release proceeding. So long as such decree is not aside, it has to be accepted as genuine.
Raj Mohan Krishna Vs. The IInd Additional District Judge and others , AIR 1993 Alld. 40 is an authority of this court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur ( as he then was ) that it is not open to the tenant to challenge the decree passed in a civil suit, in release proceedings. The Prescribed Authority is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction which has been constituted under the Act for deciding the release application. It has no jurisdiction to all to examine the correctness or otherwise of a decree passed by a competent Civil Court.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Lata Sharma Vs. Raj Pal and another, 2004(2) ARC 525 , the Apex Court has held as under:-
" In our view, in the facts and circumstances as mentioned in the release application and also the stand taken by the tenant in written statement and keeping in view the definition of "landlord" in Section 3 (j) , respondent no.2 can neither be said to be necessary nor proper party to the proceedings . The question of title cannot be decided by the prescribed authority under the Act. The orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the High Court , therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside."
Smt. Kamla Devi and others Vs. XIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others , 2008 (26) LCD 335, a person purchased a house and apply for release under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act ,contested and opposed by another person on the ground that the sale-deed executed in respect to a trust property was void documents and the proceedings under Rent Control Act are not maintainable, the stand taken by the person who opposed release application moved by landlady was negate and in para-10 it has been held as under:-
"Looking to the fact that the petitioner Kamla Devi has purchased the property by means of the registered sale-deed in her favour and the application for allotment was filed as early as on 3rd of November, 1981 and thus, about 26 years are going to pass, it is desirable that the allotment proceedings be dropped and the allotment application be rejected as it would amount to travesty of justice to dispossess a person from the property in question in whose favour a registered sale-deed is still standing and the real owner if any has not come forward to challenge the said sale-deed and the proceedings are bing taken out by a person who is merely an applicant for allotment. Whether the sale-deed standing in favour of Smt. Kamla Devi is valid or not can be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court of Competent jurisdiction and not in these collateral proceedings specially when the said sale deed is not being questioned who may be the ultimate beneficiary , but by a third party having no proprietary interest in the proceedings."
For the foregoing reasons the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner summarized as (a) and (b) have got no force, accordingly rejected.
ON SUBMISSION NO.(C) So far as the next arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially in respect to the premises in question the allotment proceedings has been initiated by one Smt. Purinider Kaur Oberoi before opposite party no.1 and a case no. 419 of 1999 registered in which Smt. Veena Shukla / opposite party no.4 in the capacity of Secretary of the society given statement that premises in question belongs to Society, so as per the provisions of Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act and not maintainable, dropped by order dated 13.8.1999, so subsequent proceedings for release initiated by opposite party no.2 before opposite party no.1 is not maintainable barred by res judicata is also incorrect, misconceived arguments because as per the admitted position premises in question has been purchased by opposite party no.2 by sale-deed dated 30.6.2006, not challenged before any competent court of law so there is no legal impediment or bar of provisions as provided Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act and proceedings for release application are maintainable cannot be dismissed on the ground that allotment application of Smt.Purinder Kaur Oberoi dismissed by order dated 13.8.1999 by opposite party no.1 as both the proceedings are on a different facts and circumstances as such the principles of res-judicata will not apply as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner because the said principle apply only to the situations which are static and not to changing situations.
In the case of Dr. Sita Ram Gandhi Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge, Meerut and another , 1983 Allahabad Rent Cases ,782 this Court has held in para -11 as under:-
" For what I have said above the next question that arises for decision is whether the principles of res judicata can be applied to the proceedings under Section 21 when the application of then landlord made earlier under Section 16 has failed. It had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that to such a case the principles of res judicata do not apply and every application has to be decided independently and without being influenced by the judgment given in the earlier. To me it appears that in a case where no new facts have come into existence and there have been no intervening change or circumstances to second application may not be entertainable on the principles of res judicata but where the landlord establishes a change of circumstances since the first application , the said case would require the court trying the second application to re investigate not only the question of bona fide requirement but also a greater hardship and to find on the basis of intervening changed circumstances as to whether the landlord is entitled to a release to be made in his favour under Section 21 of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972."
In the case of Ram Kishun Vs. XI Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others,1995 (26) ALR 571, as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner , this Court in para-7 has held as under:-
"Reliance has been placed by him on the authority cited as Dr. Sitar Ram Gandhi V. IVth Additional District Judge, Meerut and other 1983 (1) ARC 782. In my opinion, the said argument is not tenable because the principles of res-judicata apply only to the situations which are static and not to changing situations."
Accordingly, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard has not force and is liable to be rejected.
ON SUBMISSION No. D Last arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once an objection has been taken by the petitioner that in view of the provisions under Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act provisions of rent control are not applicable, the same be decided as preliminary issue by the opposite party no.1 is also in correct and wrong arguments as from the perusal of the order dated 12.2.2009 passed by opposite party no.1,it is clear that a categorical findings of fact has been given by opposite party no.1 in this regard that after the application for release moved by opposite party no.2 on 9.6.2007 the report from Rent Control Inspector as per procedure was sought, submitted on 3.7.2007 then Smt. Rachna Vaijal wife of Sri Sunil Kumar Baijal / petitioner filed an objection on 10.1.2008 and affidavit dated 30.1.2008 inter alia stating therein that the premises in question belongs to a Society namely, Pandit B.M. Tripathi Memorial, she is tenant of the Society doing her business and sale-deed executed by Smt. Veena Shukla is not a valid documents, an outcome of fraud, so there was no vacancy, release application liable to be dismissed. To the said plea,response/ objection and affidavit dated 18.1.2008 and 5.2.2008 filed by opposite party no.2 / landlady that after the purchase of the premises in question from Smt. Veena Shukla by registered sale-deed not challenged before any competent court of law, provisions of 2 (1) (f) of the Act not applicable, got right to move release application, the vacancy was declared on 26.8.2008.
Thereafter again on 8.9.2008 and 25.9.2008 similar objection and affidavit were filed by the petitioner to recall the order for declaring the vacancy, considering the said fact and material was dismissed by opposite party no.1 by order dated 12.2.2009 same is perfectly valid and in accordance with the law as provided Section 38 of Act read with Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C. so I do not find that any illegality or infirmity is committed by opposite party no.1 in not deciding the objection taken by the petitioner as preliminary issue. Accordingly the arguments as made on behalf of the petitioner in this regard has no force , rejected. Further she cannot derive any benefit from the authorities cited in support of the arguments in question as they are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
Further a revisional authority in this regard while deciding the revision also given a categorical findings quoted as under:-
"Vipakchi sankhya no.2 ne yeh abhikathan kiya hai ki if panjikrat bainama ke jariya bhawan per purv swamini vipachi sankhya 4 veena Shukla se hasil kar kabij hai. Iske pratham tal per wah apne pariwar ke sath niwas kar rahi hai. Nigranikarta ne is antaran ka tatha pratham tal per niwas karne ko swikar kiya hai kinto yeh kaha gaya hai ki nigranikarta ko vipachi sankhya 2 ka prashnagat bhawan ka swami hona swikar nahi hai. Vipachi sankhya 2 ke hak me vipachi sankhya 4 ya prasnagat bhawan ka jo panjikrat bainama kiya hai, ose kisi pach dwara kisi saksham nyayalaya me chonauti diya jana bhi nahi kaha gaya hai. Atah panjikrat bainama vipachi sankhya 2 ke pach wa hai. Srimati Kamladevi evam anya banam II Apar Zila Judge Varanasi evam anya 2007 (2) J.C.L.R. 762 ke mamle me manniya Uccttam Nayaylaya dwara yeh mat vyakt kiya gaya hai ki sammpatti ke swatav ka preshn niyat pradhikari dwara nirnit nahi kiya ja sakta hai. Uprokt ke aadhar per aapachit aadesh parit hote samay prashangat bhawan ka society dwara hona bhi nahi paya jata hai."
Accordingly the concurrent finding of fact have been recorded by the courts below that premises in question does not belongs to a Society after execution of sale-deed,Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act are not applicable the said concurrent findings of fact given by court below cannot be reappraised or re-evaluated by this Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as per settled proposition of law as propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Phiroze Bamanji Desai Vs. Chandrakant M. Patel and others, AIR 1974 SC 1059; Bishan Chand V. Vs. A.D.J. Bulandshahr and another, 1982 (1) ARC 440 and Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash , (2004) 3 SCC 682.
Sri Murtaza H. Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 and 6 submits that in respect to the premises in question an agreement of sale has been executed by Smt. Veena Shukla/ opposite party no.4 in their favour, so the release application moved by Smt. Amar Tripathi/ opposite party no.2 is not maintainable under the Rent Control Act is incorrect and wrong submissions. In view of the fact which are stated herein above coupled with the fact that sale-deed dated 30.6.2006 executed in favour of opposite party no.2 by opposite party no.4 was not challenged by them before any competent court of law , further they are real sister-in-law ( Jaithani) of the petitioner, with oblique motive and purpose filed an objection in the matter relating to release of the premises where as per settle preposition of law they have neither any right nor locus to file an objection and contest the matter relating to release.
During the course of arguments on 7.2.2011 an application supported by an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in paras 3 to 8 of the said affidavit, it has been mentioned which is reproduced:-
" 3.That the petitioner has already deposited the rent with the respondents no.3 Society regularly till April, 2006 which cannot be disputed even by the Respondent no.3 Society.
4.That the aforesaid act of non-depositing the rent in favour of the owner of the house-in-question i.e. respondent no.3 Society since may , 2006 till January, 2011 is unintentional and bonafide and is liable to be condoned .
5.That the petitioner is desirous of depositing the entire rent amount from May, 2006 till January, 2011 with the respondent no.3 by means of the accompanying Cheque bearing Cheque no. 507175 drawn on Bank of Baroda, G.B. Marg Branch, Lucknow , dated 7.2.2011 or in cash or in the lower court by means of tender, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the instant matter.
6.That the petitioner has calculated the rent for the aforesaid building-in-question from May 2006 till January , 2011 and the said rent is given in the following Table:-
Accordingly, it is admitted fact that the petitioner is not paying any single penny of rent since May, 2006 running her business from the premises in question in her tenancy situated in one of the most important commercial place in the city of Lucknow, dis-entitle the petitioner to get any discretionary relief by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as per the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Surrendra Kumar Dwivedi and others Vs. 5th Addl. District Judge , Jhansi and others , 2006 (24) LCD 348 as under:-
"Tenant petitioners clearly denied their liability to pay any rent. This dis-entitles them to invoke to discretionary remedy of writ jurisdiction. If a party takes an extremely unjust stand then he is not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court even through impugned orders may be erroneous in law."
For the foregoing reasons, as the petitioner is not paying single penny towards rent since May,2006, retaining the premises in question, running his business, she is liable to pay the cost for the said act which is imposed as RS. 25,000/- payable to opposite party no.2 within a period of six weeks from today keeping in view the law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association , Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India , AIR 2005 SC 3353 if any of the parties has unreasonably protracted the proceedings , the judge should consider exercising discretion to impose exemplary costs.
With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.2.2011 dk/