ANJANI KUMAR,J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions since raise common question of facts and law, therefore, they are together and decided by common judgment with the consent of the parties.
(2.) IT is not disputed that the petitioners filed two writ petitions before this Court, one being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19187 of 2004; Archana Goel v. The Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Anr. and second being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19215 of 2004; Suresh Chandra Goel v. The Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Anr. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as under: That the respondent -landlord filed a suit for eviction of tenant being SCC Suit No. 99 of 1994 which is subject matter of writ petition No. 19187 of 2004 and SCC Suit No. 100 of 1994 which is subject matter of writ petition No. 19215 of 2004. In the written statements filed in both the suits, no plea of payment of Puggrie (Premium) or security money was taken. However, by way of amendment which was allowed in the year, 1998, it was asserted that petitioner of writ petition No. 19187 of 2004 paid Rs. 95,000 through banker's cheque pursuant to the agreement in writing. Petitioner of writ petition No. 19215 of 2004 by way of amendment in written statement pleaded that he paid Rs. 1,05,000 as Puggrie and Rs. 30,000 as security money in the same manner as was done by petitioner of writ petition No. 19187 of 2004. It is the case of the tenants of the two writ petitions that this security deposit will bear no interest and will be refundable after six months of petitioner's vacating and handing over its vacant peaceful possession to the landlords. The security was paid in the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The suits were tried by the Judge, Small Cause Court who decreed both the suits filed by the landlord and directed for eviction of the tenants. Both the tenants filed two revisions under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 an both the revisions were dismissed by the revisional Court by its judgment and order dated 8 -4 -2004. Thus, the aforesaid two writ petitions. These two writ petitions came up for hearing before this Court and this Court after considering all the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner -tenant by its judgment and order dated 9 -7 -2004 held that there is no error in the judgments of the Courts below and dismissed the aforesaid two writ petitions. The High Court further directed in following terms: However, tenants are granted time till 30 -6 -2005 to vacate provided that within two months from today, they file undertaking before the JSCC, to the effect that on or before 30 -6 -2005, they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the shops in dispute to the landlord -respondent. It is further directed that the entire decretal amount due till 30 -6 -2005 after adjusting the amount of Rs. 50,000 paid as security by petitioner of first writ petition and of Rs. 30,000 paid by petitioner of second writ petition shall be deposited before the trial Court within two months by the petitioners for immediate payment to landlord - respondent. In case of default in compliance with any of the above conditions, petitioners shall be evicted from the shops in dispute in execution proceedings through process of Court after two months. It was alleged by the petitioners and denied by the landlord respondent that they had paid Rs. 95,000 and 105000 respectively as Puggrie. No finding in this regard has been recorded by the Courts below. Petitioners are at liberty to institute suit for the recovery of the said amount. If such suits are filed the Court shall decide as to whether the said amounts were paid by the petitioners to landlord -respondent and shall decree the suit for recovery of the said amounts with or without interest if the Court comes to the conclusion that the said amounts were in fact advanced by the petitioners to landlord - respondent.
(3.) AFTER this Court dismissed the aforesaid two writ petitions, as stated above, the petitioners did not furnish undertaking, nor they handed over the possession, as directed by this Court by its judgment and order dated 9 -7 -2004. The petitioners took up the case to the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition wherein by the order dated 16 -11 -2004 Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to pass the following order: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The special leave petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner is permitted to file undertaking before the High Court on or before 30th November, 2004. ;