Court No. - 30
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5828 of 2018 Petitioner :- Susheel Kumar Singh Respondent :- Azeemuddin Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Bajrang Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Diwakar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.M.A. Bokhari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"A. Set aside the impugned order dated 11.9.2012 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 13, Aligarh (contained as Annexure No. 8 to the petition) in S.C.C. No. 36 of 2011 (Susheel Kumar Singh vs. Azeemuddin) and remand the matter before Judge of Small Causes Court / J.S.C.C Aligarh to decide an application of the petitioner for enhancement of monthly rent afresh.
b. Enhance the rent of the shop in question keeping in view of the surveyor report and the circle rates as issued by the District Magistrate Aligarh during the pendency of writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.
C. Direct the trial court i.e. Judge of Small Causes Court / J.S.C.C. Aligarh to decide the SCC No. 36 of 2011 (Susheel Kumar Singh vs. Azeemuddin) within three months so that justice may be done.
D. .....
E "
Earlier, Writ A No. 65225 of 2012 (Susheel Kumar Singh, vs. Additional District & Session Judge, Court No. 13 and another) was filed challenging the order impugned herein. The aforesaid petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.7.2018 by the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is arising out of SCC proceedings and as such would not be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others (2015) 5 SCC 42.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if so desires, within a period of one month from today.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to inform learned counsel for the respondents about this order in writing."
Now, this petition under Article 227 has been filed seeking same relief.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. However, in the interest of justice, the court below is directed to decide the SCC No. 36 of 2011 (Susheel Kumar Singh vs. Azeemuddin) preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
With this observation, present petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Lalit Shukla