Prakash Krishna - (1.) -This is an unfortunate litigation. The litigation has come to this Court second time. The petitioners of Writ Petition No. 68026 of 2006 and of Writ Petition No. 8129 of 2007 though lost upto the Apex Court have audacity to say before the trial court that the judgment of the Apex Court which in turn confirmed the judgment of the High Court is liable to be ignored and be treated as null and void as the orders were obtained by fraud without disclosing any particulars as to how the fraud has been committed.
(2.) ALL the three writ petitions were heard together on the request made by the learned counsel namely Shri Dhan Prakash Agrawal and Rajiv Sharma for the petitioners. The argument was advanced in the leading case being Writ Petition No. 68026 of 2006 which arises out of an ad interim injunction matter. It was agreed upon by the counsel for the parties that the fate of other writ petitions is dependent upon the outcome of the Writ Petition No. 68026 of 2006. The facts of the Writ Petition No. 68026 of 2006 are, therefore, noticed. The property in dispute is a double storeyed accommodation. It consists of four Khani (compartments) shops on the ground flour and four rooms on the first flour. The first flour accommodation is being used for residential purposes by the tenant. It is not in dispute that one Mewa Lal, the predecessor in interest of the present petitioner was the original tenant against whom an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) was filed. It was registered as P.A. Case No. 4 of 1978 before the prescribed authority/ Munsif Shahganj, Jaunpur. During the pendency of proceedings Mewa Lal, the original tenant expired leaving behind him three sons namely Radhey Shyam, Uma Shanker and Sita Ram. All the three sons were substituted in place of Mewa Lal and they contested the release application filed by Nasim Ahmed, the respondent No. 2, herein, tooth and nail. The matter of grant of release, ultimately reached to this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 20382 of 1990. In the writ petition besides the other pleas a plea was also raised that Radhey Shyam and Sita Ram have purchased 1/9th share of the disputed property by means of registered sale-deed dated 5th of January, 1981 executed by one co-sharer and therefore they have become co-sharer. The said plea was put in forefront by the petitioners herein, who were respondents in the Writ Petition No. 20382 of 1990, as defence. This Court rejected the said plea by its judgment dated 27th of March, 2006. The validity of the High Court judgment was challenged before the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7624 of 2006. In the special leave petition the Apex Court passed an order directing the petitioners therein to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month if they file undertaking within the time granted by High Court, vide order dated 9th May, 2006. It was provided that in case the petitioners fail to give undertaking within the time granted, then they shall pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2,500, as has been directed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. In pursuance thereof, undertaking was furnished before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaunpur in Execution Case No. 6 of 2006 by the judgment debtors therein namely Gulab Devi, Siya Ram, Shree Ram, Uma Shanker and Shiv Shanker vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
(3.) THE special leave petition was dismissed subsequently by following order dated 5th of May, 2006 : "Heard. THE Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, counsel prays for some time to vacate the suit premises which is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent who is present on caveat. Accordingly, the petitioners, are granted time upto 1st November, 2006 to vacate the suit premises subject to filing of usual undertaking within four weeks from today. THEy should handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent on or before 1st November, 2006, if not already vacated." This was the first round of litigation between the parties which reached upto the Apex Court in respect of the property in question.;