Nanhey Vs. Harish Chandra Gupta

Nanhey vs Harish Chandra Gupta

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Nov 23, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/491519

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/491519
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Anjani Kumar, J.
Decided On: Nov 23, 2004
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43707 of 2004
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Provincial Small Cause Courts Act - Sections 25; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nanhey

Advocate A.K. Gupta and ;Akhtar Husain, Advs.

Respondent

Harish Chandra Gupta

Advocate K.M. Garg, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Provincial Small Cause Courts Act - Sections 25; Constitution of India - Article 226
Cases Referred: C) H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul.
Reported In: 2005(1)ARC105

Excerpt

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....from any error of law, wherein the revisional court has held that the suit is maintainable before the judge small causes court. in this view of the matter, i find that no ground is made out for interference by this court in exercise of power under article 226 of the constitution of india. this writ petition therefore, has no force and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.4. lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that the petitioner is tenant for very long time and is carrying on his business, he may be granted some time to vacate the premises in question. considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice i direct that the decree passed against the petitioner shall not be executed till 30th june, 2005, provided:-(i) the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking before the prescribed authority within a period of one month from today to the effect that he will handover the peaceful vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlord on or before 30th june, 2005; and(ii) the petitioner-tenant pays, if not already paid, all the arreas of rent/damages at the rate of rent to the landlord and keeps on paying the same by the first week of each succeeding month so long he remains in possession, or, till 30th june, 2005, whichever is earlier;(iii) in the event of default of any of the conditions, referred to above, it will be open to the landlord to get the decree executed.5. with the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is dismissed. however, there will be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Anjani Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri K.M. Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order dated 7th August, 2004, passed by the revisional Court, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'2' to the writ petition, whereby the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act filed by the landlord-respondent was allowed by the revisional Court and set aside the judgment and order of the lower Court.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant argued that the view taken by the revisional Court that the service of notice upon one of the joint tenant cannot be held to be sufficient for all the joint tenants. Admittedly, the notice has not been served on all the joint tenants. The revisional Court while allowing the revision has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1989 (2) ARC, Page 26 (SC) H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul. I do not see, nor any such thing could be pointed out by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant for a different view than what has been taken by the revisional Court. So far as the question of maintainability of the suit is concerned, the revisional Court's view cannot be said to be suffered from any error of law, wherein the revisional Court has held that the suit is maintainable before the Judge Small Causes Court. In this view of the matter, I find that no ground is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition therefore, has no force and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

4. Lastly, it is submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that the petitioner is tenant for very long time and is carrying on his business, he may be granted some time to vacate the premises in question. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice I direct that the decree passed against the petitioner shall not be executed till 30th June, 2005, provided:-

(i) the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking before the prescribed authority within a period of one month from today to the effect that he will handover the peaceful vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlord on or before 30th June, 2005; and

(ii) the petitioner-tenant pays, if not already paid, all the arreas of rent/damages at the rate of rent to the landlord and keeps on paying the same by the first week of each succeeding month so long he remains in possession, or, till 30th June, 2005, whichever is earlier;

(iii) in the event of default of any of the conditions, referred to above, it will be open to the landlord to get the decree executed.

5. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2004 Same Parties Nanhey vs Harish Chandra Gupta Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Anjani Kumar, J. Acts & Sections Provincial Small Cause Courts Act - Sections 25; Constitution...

Tenancy