Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the respective parties. The petitioner was tenant of shop No. 112/343, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur since 1972. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 purchased the shop on 23.11.1991. The petitioner apprehended eviction; hence he filed a suit No. 2391 of 1992 for permanent injunction against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from evicting him from the shop and demolishing the building. The petitioner has also filed an application under Order 39,R.1, C.P.C. for temporary injunction in the suit praying that he may not be evicted from the shop except in accordance with law. The defendant also filed an application under Order 39,R.1 seeking relief that he has purchased the shop in dispute and has to renovate and reconstruct the building including the shop and the petitioner be restrained from obstructing the construction work. The then Munsif by order -dated 11.2.1993 rejected the application of the petitioner and allowed the injunction application filed by the defendant -respondent and directed the petitioner to shift in newly constructed shop within seven days. The petitioner has challenged this order in Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 1993, which was dismissed in default on 8.10.1996. The landlord then filed application, paper No. 117 -G, that order -dated 11.2.1993 be executed through police aid. This was allowed by order -dated 3.1.1998. Thereafter application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and for police aid was filed (paper No. 122 -G). The Court by order dated 17.1.1998 allowed the application and petitioner was rejected on 24.1.1998. The petitioner appear to have filed these orders in Writ Petition No. 6861 of 1998.
(2.) IT is stated by respondent that the petitioner occupied newly constructed shop on 27.1.1998 and old shop occupied by the petitioner was demolished on 28.1.1998. The respondents initiated the proceedings for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent under section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Suit No. 84 of 1993). The Judge Small Causes Court decreed the suit against which petitioner filed the rent revision. The revision was dismissed by order -dated 13.12.1995. Thereafter the petitioner filed writ petition No. 37379 of 1995 which was partly allowed by order dated 26.11.1996. This Court set aside the eviction but confirmed the money decree against which the petitioner filed a restoration application, which was also dismissed in default on 23.4.1997. Thus injunction order dated 11.2.1993 became final and the petitioner was evicted. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was evicted disobeying order dated 26.11.1996 passed by this Court by which the eviction of the petitioner had been set aside. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 3.1.1998, 8.10.1996 and 11.2.1993 passed by the Courts below and has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore back the possession of the petitioner with other reliefs. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to direct the tenant to shift to other shop and the impugned order dated 11.2.1993 passed by the Munsif is wholly without jurisdiction as power to evict a tenant from premises lies before the authorities mentioned in U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 i.e. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. These questions were raised by the petitioner in Suit No. 84 of 1993 and were rejected by Court. They cannot be agitated now.
(3.) FROM the facts stated above, it is also clear that order dated 11.2.1993 was passed in Suit No. 2391 of 1992 filed by the petitioner for injunction, which was dismissed. Even the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 13.12.1995. The respondent had initiated separate proceedings under section 20(2)(a) of the Rent Control Act No. 13 of 1972 (Suit No. 84 of 1993) for arrears of rent and eviction on that ground. In this case decree for eviction was set aside by this Court on 26.11.1996. This order did not affect the injunction suit and orders passed thereon on 8.10.1996 by the then Munsif. The application for restoration was dismissed on 23.4.1993 and the petitioner was rejected on 3.1.1998. The petitioner has not been evicted under Order dated 12.11.1993, on 11.2.1993 and 3.1.1998.;