Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 150254 (ALL)

DIGVIJAY SINGH BISHT v. ADDITIONAL DISTT. JUDGE / SPECIAL JUDGE PC ACT ROOM NO. 7 CIVIL COURT LKO. AND ANOTHER

A227/4406/2025 · 2025-07-29

Pankaj Bhatia

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43843 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4406 of 2025 Petitioner :- Digvijay Singh Bisht Respondent :- Additional Distt. Judge / Special Judge Pc Act Room No. 7 Civil Court Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Awasthi Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 07.05.2025 passed in SCC Suit No.58 of 2019. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a tenant in the premises in question since the year 2007 and his tenancy agreement was with Sushma Singh and Vijay Singh. Subsequently, the rent was enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per month. It is also argued that as the petitioner was facing threats of eviction, the petitioner had instituted a Suit No.521 of 2012, in which an interim protection was granted not to take action against the petitioner except in accordance with law. It is stated that in the year 2012, the property was sold by the owner to one Shri Dhananjay Srivastava and thereafter, the firm of Shri Dhananjay, namely, M/s Kirti Prakashan was fraudulently taken over by respondent No.2. It is stated that Shri Dhananjay did not accept the rent. It is also stated that Shri Dhananjay Srivastava died in the calamity that was occurred over the Kedarnath pilgrims in the year 2013. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has unauthorizedly grabbed the whole property and the business of Shri Dhananjay Srivastava and has declared himself as the Director of M/s Kirti Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. and this aspect should be looked into. 5. On a specific question being raised, as to why a revision is not being preferred against the order passed by the JSC Court, it is stated that as the property has been grabbed by respondent No.2, for which no action is being taken for investigation, the petitioner has approached this Court. With regard to the judgement dated 07.05.2025, it has been stated that opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 was not provided. 6. Considering the said submissions made at the Bar, all the submissions were made before the JSC Court. The court analyzed the submissions in between the parties and held that the relationship of the land lord and the tenant existed in between the parties. The court also noticed an agreement made in the year 2007, whereby the rent was enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per month and thereafter to Rs.12,000/- and subsequently to Rs.25,000/-. Admittedly, the petitioner has not paid the rent since the year 2012. The court also recorded findings of fact with regard to the notice and a specific finding with regard to the arrears of rent has been recorded against the petitioner. As the findings of fact have been recorded, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the ownership and the manner in which respondent No.2 has grabbed the property of the erstwhile owner, loses relevance as the relationship of the land lord and the tenant exists. No good ground for interference is made out. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 8. The order passed by the JSC Court shall be executed forthwith. 9. At this stage, after arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition with liberty to prefer a revision. 10. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed, subject to payment of a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- for wasting the time of this Court. The District Magistrate, Lucknow shall recover the cost from the petitioner as arrears of rent revenue and shall pay the same to respondent No.2 within a period of one month from today. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench