Writ Petition No. 2804 of 2015. Case: Satya Pal Anand Vs Bal Neketan Nyas, Bhopal. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 2804 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Respondents: Mrs. Shobha Menon, Sr. Adv., with Ms. Ankita Khare, Swapnil Ganguly, Government Advs. |
| Judges | A. M. Khanwilkar , C.J. and Alok Aradhe, J. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - Order 21 Rules 97, 101, 103; Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Citation | AIR 2015 MP 144 |
| Judgement Date | March 24, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
Alok Aradhe, J.
-
In this petition titled as one under Article 226 read with Articles 14, 19, 21, 215 and 235 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for multiple reliefs which are reproduced below for the facility of reference:
"7.(a) In view of the submissions made above, the impugned order dated 16.12.2014 directing dismissal of the MJC No.40/2013 be kindly be quashed by a writ of Certiorari and granting such other reliefs as deemed deserved in law exercising constitutional powers vested in this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and by a writ of Mandamus the respondent No.2 be directed not to re-issue any warrant of delivery of physical possession of the premises in the lawful possession of the petitioner in his own rights till the mandatory investigations are completed as per law, so that a running business of the petitioner is not disturbed abruptly in violation of his rights to have justice as per law of this land.
(b) And the amount of the compensation claimed be kindly granted as prayed or such other amount as estimated to be just upon the facts herein in the public law proceedings and the respondents be directed to make payment of the directed amount of the compensation and exemplary costs in a just time and report compliance to this Hon'ble Court within directed time.
(c) And the respondent No.3 be kindly directed to investigate and submit his report under what circumstances such heavy Police force remained at the premises of the petitioner when it is said in the order dated 16.5.2014 that there was no judicial order passed directing the Police force to be present there during the far long time when the execution of the warrant for delivery of the physical possession was being carried out on 23.4.2014 till 2.00 p.m. and even thereafter without the authority of law and directing such action against the process servers who have made a false statement of fact that there was no police force when they had been executing the warrant under question on 23.4.2014.
(d) That the order passed in case of MJC No.563/12 on 16.12.2014 be kindly quashed and set aside passing such order thereupon as deemed just.
(e) That Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 be kindly read down as prayed herein.
(f) That such further or additional reliefs as deemed just be kindly granted together with costs deemed just".
-
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 insofar 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 a declaration that the notification dated 7.9.1989 issued by the M.P. State Government in exercise of power under Section 3(2) of the Act is constitutionally invalid and void ab initio and also ultra vires Section 3(2) of the Act.
(iii) for a declaration that each Trust claiming an exemption from the applicability of the Act, will have to make an application to the State Government disclosing the particulars entitling them to exemption under Section 3(2) of the Act and the State Government will have to decide whether such Trust is entitled to the exemption after hearing the affected persons and a further declaration that the notification dated 7.9.1989 does not grant any general exemption to charitable Trusts in particular the second respondent-Trust, from the application of the Act.
(iv) for a consequential declaration that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or hear the suit for eviction Civil Original Suit No.20-A/2002 filed by the second respondent-Trust.
(v) for quashing the order dated 15.3.2004 passed by the trial Court answering the preliminary issue in favour of the landlord, the provision of Section 3(2) of the Act is unconstitutional".
-
A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.8.2004 dismissed the writ petition. The relevant extract of the order reads as under:
"Once the Supreme Court has held that the notification dated 7.9.1989 is valid, it is impermissible for us to entertain a contention that the decision of the Supreme Court upholding the validity of the notification dated 7.9.1989 is erroneous with reference to some general principles laid down in an earlier decision of the Supreme Court. As the notification which is under challenge has been upheld by the Supreme Court and the other reliefs claimed by the petitioner are consequential upon the relief relating to the validity of notification dated 7.9.1989, the petition is liable to be dismissed as having no merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed".
-
The petitioner once again filed an application raising similar objection in the Civil Suit, which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 29.11.2005. That order was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the petitioner in W.P. No.2842/2006, in which a Division Bench of this Court granted stay of proceeding before the trial Court, which was subsequently vacated vide order dated 17.7.2012. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2012 decreed the suit for eviction and directed the petitioner to vacate the suit premises and to deposit arrears of rent due to respondent No.1-Trust.
-
The petitioner filed First Appeal No.1037/12, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2012 and the execution of the decree for eviction was stayed subject to fulfillment of conditions mentioned therein. The relevant extract of the order reads as under:
"Several contentions have been raised by appellant including virus and provisions as envisaged under Section 3 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act to be unconstitutional and further it has been submitted that appellant never agreed to pay rent @ Rs.15/- per square feet of the tenanted premises and therefore he is not bound to pay or deposit the rent as decided by learned trial Court in the impugned...
To continue reading
Request your trial