Poonam Srivastav, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. K. Rajvanshi, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Ashok Srivastava, advocate appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged. The writ petition is listed for admission. As agreed between the counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition is finally decided at the stage of admission itself. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that father of the petitioner, Shiv Narain Chaudhary, instituted an Original Suit No. 192 of 1980 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Allahabad, for eviction of the contesting respondent on the ground that he is in default in making payment of rent as well as he has caused material alteration to the shop in dispute. The suit was contested by the tenant. The Judge, Small Causes Court, vide its judgment and order dated 28.9.1991 decreed the suit holding that the tenant is in default and on the ground that material alteration has been made in the shop in question, which has diminished its value and utility. Finding was recorded that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable to the shop in question. Against the said decree of the Judge, Small Causes Court, the tenant preferred Civil Revision No. 55 of 1992 before this Court. During pendency of the revision, original landlord Shiv Narain Chaudhary died and was substituted by Surya Narain Chaudhary. The defendant No. 2 Dina Nath, also died and his name was deleted from array of the parties. The Civil Revision No. 55 of 1992 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5.5.2006 upholding the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Causes Court. This Court, while dismissing the revision noticed that the case took 11 years in the trial court and 14 years in the High Court. However, the tenant preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 14610 of 2006 before the Apex Court, which was also dismissed on 25.8.2006. Learned counsel for the tenant prayed for one year's time to vacate the accommodation, which was not disagreed by the counsel for the landlord. An affidavit was filed on 20.9.2006 to the effect that the vacant possession of the shop Nos. 9, 10 and 11 will be handed over on or before 25.8.2007. However, the tenant did not vacate the accommodation in accordance with the undertaking given in pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court and continued to be in occupation.
(3.) THE execution case was instituted prior to decision of the Apex Court and the High Court in the year 1991. An objection under Section 47, C.P.C. was preferred by the tenant. Subsequently, tenant/respondent No. 1 Om Prakash Jaiswal claimed that an agreement has been entered into between the parties subsequent to decision of the Apex Court in respect of the shop Nos. 9, 10 and 11 on payment of Rs. 1,500 per month for each shop on 20.8.2007 and, therefore, the decree passed in S.C.C. Suit stand waived. THE agreement also mentions that the landlord will not press his Execution Case No. 3 of 1991 and he will withdraw another proceedings initiated before the Prescribed Authority for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. THE said case is numbered as P.A. Case No. 167 of 1982. A stay application has also been preferred before the executing court on 15.9.2007 on account of the fact that tenancy stands atoned by the landlord on the basis of agreement. The landlord has come up in the instant writ petition with a prayer that the entire proceedings of Misc. Case No. 28 of 2007, Om Prakash Jaiswal v. Surya Narain Chaudhary on the basis of the alleged agreement filed in Execution Case No. 3 of 1991 are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.;