Bal Krishna Agrawal vs Chandra Kishore Jain

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The brief facts of the case are that S.C.C. Suit No. 85 of 1998 was filed by Plaintiff-Respondent-Chandra Kishore Jain, for relief of eviction of the Petitioner claiming that his tenancy had been determined vide notice dated 1.7.1998. The suit was dismissed vide order dated 29.4.2006. The cross objection of the Petitioner was also rejected by the revisional court vide order dated 26.7.2010 on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 26.7.2010, the tenant-Petitioner has filed writ petition No. 45643 of 2010 which was also dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 5.8.2010. In the meantime, Respondent-landlord also preferred revision challenging the finding of the revisional court on the ground that as deposit had been made after service of notice dated 1.7.1998 on 2.7.1998, it had become invalid. Subsequently, the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Room No. 9, Allahabad allowed the revision No. 257 of 2006 and set aside the judgment dated 29.4.2006 passed by J.S.C.C. in S.C.C. Suit No. 85 of 1998 vide order dated 14.12.2010. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 14.12.2010, the Petitioner has come up in this writ petition.

The only contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that while remanding the matter the revisional court in Civil Revision No. 257 of 2006 has finally determined the controversy that is to say that the revisional court has held that the deposit made by the Petitioner u/s 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not valid deposit as the same was deposited after service of notice. His only prayer is that after this observation, there was no occasion to the revisional court for remanding the matter.

Sri. Pramod Jain, appearing for the Respondents submits that the finding recorded by the revisional court is not final when the matter has been remanded for fresh consideration.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since the matter has been remanded back for fresh consideration, with the observation of the revisional court that the deposit made by the tenant-Petitioner was not in accordance with law, as it was deposited after service of notice, there is no option except to dispose of this writ petition finally with the direction to the trial court to decide the matter afresh without being influenced by the observation of the revisional court. While deciding the matter afresh, the trial court will not grant adjournment unnecessarily and hear the matter day today basis and decide the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.