- (1.) IN this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive step against the petitioner for his dispossession from the shop premises in question. It has been stated that the petitioner has filed the writ petition praying for quashing the order dated 18.11.2008 whereby the respondent No.3 has passed an order of ejectment of the petitioner from the shop premises of I.S.P.L Society, Sakchi, Jamshedpur. But during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents are proceeding to eject the petitioner from the said shop premises.
(2.) THE respondents are, thus, required to be restrained from taking any coercive step for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop premises in question. Learned J.C to S.C-I appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the application and submitted that in the legal proceedings, the order of ejectment has been passed and the matter is of the year 2008. The petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that he is still continuing in the said shop premises. The application is frivolous and is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner faced with the said contentions of learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the lease has been renewed in favour of the petitioner and he will bring the same on record. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is still continuing in the said shop premises and the impugned ejectment order is of the year 2008, I find no ground made out for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive step for execution of the said order. More so, since the petitioner has claimed that he has got a fresh lease in respect of the shop premises in question, no further order is required, as prayed for by him. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J) I. A. No. 1929/2012 In this application, the petitioner has prayed for addition of the prayer and amendment in the writ petition. It has been stated that during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have issued a letter dated 16.6.2012 directing the petitioner to vacate the shop premises in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has challenged the order of ejectment passed by the respondents in the writ petition, but during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have again issued the order dated 16.6.2012 directing the petitioner to vacate the suit premises.
(3.) THE said letter is, thus, required to be brought on record with a prayer for quashing the same. THE amendment prayed for is, thus, required to be made in the writ petition. Learned J.C to S.C-I appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the application and submitted that the petitioner has filed the writ petition against the order of ejectment initially passed by the respondents on 18.11.2008 in Misc. Case No. 1/2008-09 and the subsequent ejectment order is dated 16.6.2012. THE ejectment order dated 16.6.2012 has no connection with the instant writ petition. THE said letter gives rise to a fresh cause of action to the petitioner and he is at liberty to file a fresh writ petition. THE application is, thus, liable to be rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of eviction order dated 18.11.2008 on the ground, inter alia, that he has got a fresh lease agreement for further period ending on 29.7.2012. THE eviction order dated 16.6.2012 was issued by the respondents after expiry of the said period. THE said letter gives rise to a fresh cause of action. THE same is only referable for the purpose of supporting his ground that further lease agreement was executed. So far as the order of ejectment on the ground of expiry of the said period is concerned, the petitioner has got a fresh cause of action and he is at liberty to take legal steps, if any, available to him, separately. In view of the above, I find no valid ground for addition of the said prayer and allowing amendment in the writ petition. This application is, accordingly, rejected.;