- (1.) Heard Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Tilhari, learned Counsel for the opposite parties. The controversy in the present case relates to House No. 436 (old 428) Amarnath Colony, Civil Lines, City, Pargana, Post office, Tahsil and District Unnao. The said house belongs to respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in which the petitioner is a tenant.
(2.) Initially the landlord has filed a S.C.C. Suit No. 19 of 2001 (Rajesh Nigam and others v. Ram Jeevan Yadav) for arrear of rent and eviction which was allowed by order dated 27.7.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Unnao. The said order was challenged by the petitioner under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, by the judgment and order dated 3.4.2006 Additional District Judge, Unnao had dismissed the revision.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order dated 27.7.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Unnao and the order dated 3.4.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Unnao, the petitioner has challenged the same by way of Writ Petition No. 86 (R/C) of 2006, Ram Jeevan Yadav v. Smt. Shanti Nigam and others and on 11.9.2008, this Court, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, had passed the following orders: Undoubtedly, the petition was entertained on 10.8.2006 and there is no order regarding deposition of rent. This Court has not considered the question as to what is the rent and what is the market value of the property and a due consideration has to be given to the landlord, who has been denied from using and occupation of the property in dispute because of the pendency of the instant writ petition since August, 2006. At this juncture, Sri A.S. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he may be allowed a week's time to seek instructions from his client regarding payment of rent at the market rate or regarding vacating the premises in a reasonable period, subject to agreement with the other contesting party, i.e., landlord. Put up on 23.9.2008 for hearing on admission.;