Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) The petitioner being a landlord and owner of shop No.1/31/6, Amar Market, Johri Bazar, Agra filed an S.C.C. Suit No.49 of 2007 (Balvir Saran Goyal Vs. Kishan Kumar) in the Court of J.S.C.C./District Judge, Agra for arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant-tenant-respondent no.1.
(2.) The suit was decreed on 31.3.2012 for the recovery of rent to the tune of Rs.1,19,000/- and the tenant-respondent no.1 was directed to vacate the shop in question within a month. It was also provided that till the actual eviction, the tenant would pay Rs.3,500/- per month from the date of the decree. The respondent no.1-defendant-tenant preferred a Civil Revision being Civil Revision No.222 of 2012 before this Court which on 8.5.2012 granted an interim order whereby it was directed that the entire decretal amount due till 30.4.2012 had to be deposited by the tenant by 28.5.2012 and further it was directed that for the subsequent months, the tenant had to pay rent at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month. This amount had to be deposited in the bank account of the landlord. Before filing of the Civil Revision, the petitioner-landlord had filed an Execution Case being Execution Case No.1 of 2012. After passing of the interim order by the High Court on 8.5.2012, the respondent no.1-tenant, on 23.5.2012, filed an application before the Executing Court that he would hand-over actual physical possession of the shop in question along with all the decretal amount by 31.7.2012. It was further stated in the application that if the respondent-tenant did not vacate the premises by 31.7.2012, then the decree-holder/petitioner-landlord would be entitled for damages at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month with effect from 1.8.2012. However, since the Revision was filed in the High Court, the tenant-respondent no.1 also filed an application before the High Court on 7.7.2012 in the Civil Revision itself and furnished an undertaking therein to vacate the premises in question on or before 31.7.2012. On the basis of the application filed by the respondent no.1, the Civil Revision was dismissed on 27.8.2012. When the petitioner was not given the possession and as he had allowed the earlier execution case being Execution Case No.1 of 2012 to be dismissed in default, the petitioner filed a fresh application for executing the decree dated 31.3.2012. This application was numbered as Execution Case No.1 of 2015. In this Execution Application the tenant-respondent no.1 filed an application under section 47 of the C.P.C. on 13.4.2015. This was registered and numbered as Misc. Case No.16 of 2015. In this application, he came up with a case that the landlord had appointed an Arbitrator to settle the dispute between himself and the tenant and the Arbitrator had prepared an award dated 20.5.2012 by which it was settled that the defendant-tenant would vacate the premises on 31.7.2012 and would handover possession of the shop to one Navin Agarwal who would pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the plaintiff-landlord. In the Application No.16 of 2015, respondent no.1 had also stated that he had transferred possession to Navin Agarwal and was no longer in possession. Simultaneously, respondent no.2 i.e. Navin Agarwal, who was the son of respondent no.1-tenant, also filed an application under Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and section 47 of the C.P.C. This application was registered as Misc. Case No.21 of 2015. In this Application, it was averred that the parties had agreed to appoint three Arbitrators namely Madan Gopal, Girraj Kishore Agarwal and Brijesh Mittal. The three Arbitrators in their turn had appointed Madan Gopal as the Chief Arbitrator to settle the controversy and on 20.5.2012, Madan Gopal had decided the reference and had also prepared the award wherein the petitioner was to issue rent receipt to the respondent no.2-Navin Agarwal, who would be in possession.
(3.) The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the proceedings initiated in the Misc. Case No.16 of 2015 (Kishan Kumar Vs. Balvir Saran Goyal) and the Misc. Case No.21 of 2015 (Navin Kumar Vs. Balvir Saran Goyal) filed in Execution Case No.1 of 2015 be quashed. A further prayer has been made that the respondent no.3 i.e. the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Agra/J.S.C.C., Agra be directed to ensure that the vacant physical possession of the shop No.1/31/6, Amar Market, Johri Bazar, Agra is handed over to the petitioner.;