S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) ORIGINAL landlady petitioner filed suit for eviction against original tenant respondent No. 3 - -Mohan Lal in the form of SCC Suit No. 14 of 1975. The suit was decreed ex -parte by JSCC/Civil Judge, Mirzapur. Thereafter restoration application was filed which was rejected. However in Misc. appeal filed against the said order restoration application was allowed. Meanwhile landlord had taken possession of the house in dispute in execution. Thereafter the house fell down. According to the landlord it fell down of its own and according to the tenant landlord demolished the same. Thereafter tenant filed application for restoration of possession under section 144, C.P.C. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court and Misc. appeal filed against the same being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1981 was also dismissed by District Judge, Mirzapur through judgment and order dated 16.11.1981. It was argued before the Appellate Court that the building in dispute was no more in existence. Appellate Court held that still possession of the land/site over which building was constructed could be delivered. The aforesaid judgments directing re -delivery of possession under section 144, C.P.C. have been challenged through this writ petition. On 6.7.2005 I directed the parties to intimate the Court regarding the fate of SCC Suit No. 14 of 1975 after it was restored. I also directed the parties to explore the chances of compromise. On 28.7.2005 parties almost agreed for compromise. Landlord agreed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - to the tenant in case he gave up his right under the impugned orders. Unfortunately on the next date i.e. 22.8.2005 the tenant resiled from his compromise. Accordingly matter was directed to be listed for arguments.
(2.) ON 1.9.2005 I directed the Trial Court to decide SCC Suit No. 14 of 1975 within four months. The Trial Court has sent a letter dated 24.10.2005 to the effect that the file of the suit had been destroyed in accordance with Rules on 18.6.1994 hence it was not possible to decide the suit. As file of the suit has been destroyed and as building is not in existence and tenant is not in possession for more than 25 years hence no useful purpose will be served by directing re -delivery of the land/site over which house in dispute was built. The interest of just will best be served by awarding compensation to the tenant. Rate of rent is Rs. 30/ - per month. Accordingly an amount covering 50 years rent i.e. Rs. 18,000/ - (12 x 50 x 30 = 18,000) is awarded to the tenant in lieu of order of re -delivery of possession. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgments and orders are set aside on the condition that within three months from today petitioner pays Rs. 18,000/ - to the tenant -respondent. The amount may be paid through draft drawn in favour of any one of the contesting respondents and handed over to Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel for contesting respondents in this Court. If the said amount is not paid within three months then this order shall stand automatically vacated and the writ petition shall stand dismissed.;