PARWATI DEVI Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONS under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were filed by the tenants/petitioners through Shri R.S. Sammal, Advocate assailing the eviction order / judgment passed by the Appellant Court, however, on 29th April, 2014, when petitions were taken up for hearing, Mr. R.S. Sammal, Advocate, the then counsel for the tenants sought permission to withdraw the petitions with request to grant time to vacate the building, in question, and to hand over peaceful vacant possession to the landlord. All the petitions were disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for the parties vide judgment dated 29th April, 2014 granting time till 30th April, 2015 to hand over peaceful vacant possession to the landlord.

(2.) NOW , recall applications are moved through new counsel Shri Mohd. Umar taking new ground that eviction proceeding under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not maintainable in view of the fact that landlord is a Bank and landlord ought to have filed simplicitor suit for eviction on the ground of termination of tenancy at will.

(3.) THE judgment cited by Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate for the applicants in the case of Jet Ply Wood (P) Ltd. and another Vs. Madhukar Nowlakha and others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 699 does not attract in the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the fact that in the judgment of Jet Ply Wood (P) Ltd. (Supra), suit was permitted to be withdrawn without liberty to file fresh. Thereafter, application for recall was moved seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh. In the present case suit was never withdrawn rather petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were withdrawn with open mind with further liberty to hand over actual physical vacant possession to the landlord on or before 30th April, 2015. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to recall the consent order.