WP-4638-2015. Case: Satya Pal Anand Vs Bal Neketan Nyas and Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | WP-4638-2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person |
| Judges | A. M. Khanwilkar, C.J. and Alok Aradhe, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXI Rules 103, 35, 151; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 141, 19, 21, 215, 226, 227, 228, 301, 50; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Sections 13, 3, 3(2) |
| Judgement Date | April 06, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Order:
Alok Aradhe, J.
1. The petitioner, who has not fulfilled the terms and conditions, subject to which execution of the decree for eviction was stayed by a Bench of this Court in First Appeal, has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India claiming multiple reliefs, which are reproduced below for the facility of reference:-
"(a) In view of the submissions made above, the operation of the order directing the deposit of Rs.10,13,078/- before 23.03.2015 be kindly stayed till the decision of this writ petition, & the cheque dated 20.03.2015, presented before the ld. Court below drawn in its favour, as was directed by it, be directed to be returned, to the petitioner, which had been presented, as a law abiding citizen, but, it was directed not to be en-cashed then, on 20.03.2015 & case is fixed for hearing on 30.03.2015, as the stay order prayed in Writ Petition No. 2804.2008 had not been then granted & liberty was granted to file this writ petition by the order emailed to the petitioner dated 24.03.2015. Therefore, stay order be kindly e-mailed to the learned Execution Court below adopting innovative approach to do justice or by Fax or Telephone directing the Learned Principal Registrar Judicial to communicate the order as soon as it is passed, directed a CC also to be provided to the petitioner, soon upon passing of the prayed order ex-parte;
(b) And, the hearing of the MJC No. 40/2013 be kindly directed to be made by such other Hon'ble Court, i.e. other than the one presided by the learned Judge Mr.B.B. Shukla and Mr.B.S. Bhadhoria to ensure impartial and fair hearing thereof as per laws of this land, as constitutionally guaranteed;
(c) And, the hearing of the Execution case No. 18/2013 be also similarly directed to be done by another learned Judge of the Court below, to provide justice as per law & constitutionally guaranteed, to provide impartial and unbiased hearing, as per submissions made in para (b) above;
(d) And, in view of the submissions made supported with judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the payment of monthly rent be kindly reduced to Rs.75/- per month being the agreed rent as the petitioner is not a trespassed but statutory tenant not liable to pay any damages or mesne profit as per laws of this land, but only the admittedly agreed rent @ Rs.75/- per month, directing refund of excessive amount deposited till 31.06.2015;
(e) And, the learned Court below be kindly directed to take steps as per law to collect the amount of the Bank Draft cited hereinabove from the State Bank of India, Bhopal, because having paid the amount in its favour, in the manner it was demanded, the petitioner has no more any authority to deal with it, & to fix the judicial responsibility for its not in time collection and for not issuing its receipt in time, the deserved directions be kindly given, & granting other deserved reliefs;
(f) And, contempt proceedings criminal be kindly initiated suo motu against the learned Senior Advocate Mrs. Shobha Menon and administrative action against her be also kindly initiated suo motu to withdraw her status of a learned Senior Advocate as per law;
(g) And, such exemplary & compensatory costs as deemed just be kindly awarded considering the high costs being suffered by the petitioner, as per law, who resides at Indore;
(h) And, that the Bal Niketan Nyas & its Pradhan Kailash Agrawal and the State of MP be kindly directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs by each of them in all not less than Rs.30,00,000/- because of unlawful entry made in the premises on 23.04.2014 & causing great injury to the commercial reputation, dignity & self respect of the petition & for the losses caused because of breaking the fixtures, showcases, stands racks, etc. & throwing on the public road various highly valued goods & loss caused by breakage & otherwise thereby & a compensatory cost of not lesser than Rs.2 Lakhs be kindly directed to be paid to the petitioner by the two concerned presiding officer of the executing court who had issued knowingly without jurisdiction the warrant for the delivery of the physical possession knowingly exceeding the lawful jurisdiction, and, who had passed acting contemptuously the order of dismissal dated 16.12.2014 of MJC No. 40/2013 & other unlawful orders knowingly acting without jurisdiction & the order of the dismissal of MJC 561/2012 knowingly without jurisdiction. And granting such other & further reliefs as deemed deserved in law."
2. In order to appreciate the scope and ambit of reliefs and the context in which the aforesaid reliefs are prayed for by the petitioner, it is apposite to refer to few relevant facts which are stated infra. The respondent No. 1 Trust filed a suit for eviction, possession and mesne profits against Anand Automobiles of which petitioner is the owner and proprietor. In the plaint, it was averred that provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are inapplicable to the suit premises as it is owned by a charitable trust, in view of notification dated 7.9.1989 issued by the State Government granting exemption to accommodations from provisions of the Act issued in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Act from provisions of the Act. The tenant resisted the suit inter-alia on the ground that issuance of notification dated 7.9.1989 does not result in an exemption from provisions of the Act in so far as respondent No. 1-Trust is concerned. The trial Court framed an issue and decided the same in favour of respondent No. 1 vide order dated 15.3.2004. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition namely W.P. No. 3192/2004 in which following reliefs were claimed:-
(i) for a declaration that Section 3 of the Act are unconstitutional.
(ii) for...
To continue reading
Request your trial