Court No. - 5
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6221 of 2019 Petitioner :- Tara Chandra Respondent :- Ved Prakash Goel And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Paul,Brij Bhushan Paul
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel for the defendant- tenant/petitioner.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 23.07.2019, in Execution Case No.19 of 2018 (Ved Prakash Goel Vs. Tara Chandra), passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Ghaziabad, whereby the application of the defendant- tenant/petitioner for keeping in abeyance the execution proceedings was rejected.
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiff- respondent filed SCC Suit No.63 of 1989 (Ved Prakash & others Vs.Tara Chandra), which was decreed by judgment and decree dated 29.11.1990, against which the defendant- tenant/petitioner filed a Civil Revision No.24 of 1991 (Tara Chandra Agarwal Vs. Ved Prakash Goel & others) in which eviction of the defendant-tenant/petitioner was stayed by an interim order dated 03.01.1991, subject to deposit the decretal amount and rent month to month.
The interim order dated 03.01.1991, passed by this Court, is reproduced below :-
"Issue notice.
Until further orders of the Court, the applicant shall not be evicted from the accommodation in dispute on the condition that the applicant continues to deposit the monthly rent by .... day of each of the succeeding months and deposit the decreetal amount in the Court below within a month from today."
In paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit filed today, the petitioner has stated as under:-
"That during pendency of said Revision on 25.4.1990 petitioner had deposited sum of Rs.7500/- and thereafter on 9.12.1999 he had deposited sum of Rs.8100/-. Copies of receipts of deposits so made by the applicant in his Revision No.4 of 1991 inre: Tara Chandra Agarwal Vs. Ved Prakash Goel and others are attached herewith as Annexure SA-1 and SA-1 respectively."
The aforesaid Revision No.24 of 1991 was dismissed on 25.05.2009.
Under the circumstances, the court below proceeded to decide the Execution Case no.19 of 2018, relating to the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1990, passed in SCC Suit No.63 of 1989.
It appears that the defendant-tenant/petitioner has filed a Recall Application before this court some time in October 2018, alongwith a delay condonation application for recall of the order dated 25.05.2009 dismissing the Civil Revision No.24 of 1991. That delay condonation application and restoration application are stated to be pending.
The court below found that defendant-tenant/petitioner has not complied with the terms of the interim order passed by this court in Civil Revision No.24 of 1991. That civil revision was dismissed on 25.05.2009. Thus, there was no legal impediment to decide the Execution Case. Therefore, the request of the petitioner to stay the execution case was rejected by the court below.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the restoration application is pending and, therefore, the court below has committed a manifest error of law not to stay the execution case. He further submits that in compliance to the interim order dated 03.01.1991, the petitioner has deposited some amount as stated in paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit filed today. He further submits that the defendant-tenant/petitioner is ready to deposit the entire decretal amount as well as the balance amount of arrears of rent with interest and, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.
I do not find any substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner. It is admitted that defendant- tenant/petitioner has not complied with the terms of interim order dated 03.01.1991, passed in Civil Revision No.24 of 1991. He has also not deposited month to month rent by the specified day of each succeeding month. The aforesaid Civil Revision was dismissed on 25.05.2009. After about 9 years the restoration application has been filed alongwith the delay condonation application. Under the circumstances the impugned order dated 23.07.2019 does not suffer from any error of law. This petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019/vkg