LAWS(CHH)-2004-8-3

SHYAM LAL AGRAWAL Vs. SARDAR GURUVACHAN SINGH

Decided On August 06, 2004
Shyam Lal Agrawal Appellant
V/S
Sardar Guruvachan Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have questioned the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 24-1-2004 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned 8th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Raipur, (Khagendra Singh), whereby the learned Additional District Judge has stayed the further proceedings of the Civil Suit No. 23-A/2002 filed by the petitioners herein against the respondent for payment of arrears of rent and eviction of the disputed premises..

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition necessary for the disposal of this petition are that respondent herein took the disputed premises ad measuring 990 sq. feet on rent in the year 1982 from the original landlord Amarjeet Singh. However, thereafter Amarjeet Singh vide registered sale deed dated 19-5-1985 sold a portion of 770 sq. feet, out of 990 sq. feet to late Smt. Tulab Bai Agrawal. Thereafter, in the year 1988 late Smt. Gulab Bai Agrawal filed a suit against the respondent herein for arrears of rent and eviction of the disputed premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and nuisance under Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, which came to be registered as Civil Suit No. 67-A/99. Later on, it was registered as 23-A/2002. The defence of the respondent herein in that eviction suit was that he is not a tenant of Smt. Gulab Bai Agrawal. During the pendency of this civil suit, Smt. Gulab Bai Agrawal died, therefore, the petitioners were brought on record as legal heirs of late Smt. Gulab Bai.

(3.) Respondent herein also filed a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale regarding the said disputed premises against the original landlord and as also against the petitioners and that suit was registered as 74-A/99. Ultimately, that suit for specific performance of the contract for sale came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, Raipur vide judgment dated 8-4-2000, against which the respondent herein has filed an appeal before this Court.