S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) On 29.8.2003 I dismissed the writ petition No. 10151 of 2003 which had been filed by the tenant Hemant Agarwal and granted eight months time to the petitioner to vacate provided that within one month from that date he filed undertaking before J.S.C.C. On 27.9.2003, Hemant Agarwal filed undertaking before J.S.C.C, However, he had no intention of complying with the undertaking. A review petition was filed which was dismissed by me on 12.1.2004. The petitioner did not vacate the premises by 29.4.2004 hence, landlord revived his execution case which had already been filed as Execution case No. 67 of 2002. In the said execution case petitioner filed objections on 27.4.2004 for setting aside the decree dated 13.9.2002 which was passed in the suit. Earlier, Vikas Agarwal real brother of petitioner Hemant Agarwal had also filed objections in execution on 26.2.2003. On 31.5.2004 another real brother of the petitioner Anil Agarwal filed objections under Order 21, Rule 97 of the CP.C. Thereafter this application dated 8.7.2004 was filed by landlord in this Court complaining about non-delivery of possession. On the said application on 12.7.2004 I passed an order that JSCC/Executing Court must decide all the objections on the next date i.e. 19.7.2004. Thereafter J.S.C.C. on 19.8.2004 passed the order for delivery of possession and to break open the lock. According to the learned Counsel for landlord at that time the learned Counsel of Anil Agarwal real brother of the petitioner Hemant Agarwal intimated the Court that the shop in dispute had been allotted to him, hence thereafter, copies of orders dated 28.6.2004 and 16.7.2004 passed by R.C. and E.O./Additional City Magistrate (VI), Kanpur Nagar in case No. 25 of 2004 were obtained. Through order dated 28.6.2004 vacancy was declared and through order dated 16.7.2004 shop in dispute was allotted in favour of Anil Agarwal. Learned Counsel for the landlord has stated and I am inclined to believe that until 19.8.2004 landlord had no information of the proceedings before R.C. and E.O.
(2.) It has further been stated that Anil Agarwal has filed civil suit and obtained a temporary injunction order on 26.7.2004. The said order has been passed in suit No. 734 of 2004 by the Civil Judge (JD), Kanpur Nagar. However, in the said order it has been mentioned that the said order would be effective only if no contrary order of any competent Court or authority is in existence.
(3.) Copies of all the above orders have been filed by landlord. Yesterday in presence of learned brief holder of Shri Ranjit Saxena, learned Counsel for tenant-petitioner, the case was directed to be put up today at 10 A.M. and the learned Counsel was directed to produce the petitioner in person. However, no one is present.;