SARDAR HARBANS SINGH Vs. CIVIL JUDGE NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application was made by respondent No. 3 under section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of an accommodation in the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground that he bona fide needed it for his own use. It appears to have been filed some time in the early part of the year 1976, the number of the case being 13 of 1976. The case went on for about a year and on 21st March, 1977 the parties filed a compromise application whereby the application under section 21 was to be allowed and the petitioner was given three-and-a-half years' time to vacate the accommodation in question. AN order was passed disposing of the application under section 21 in terms of the aforesaid compromise. The three-and-a-half years' period allowed to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation was to expire on 20th September, 1980. The petitioner took full advantage of the order passed on the basis of the compromise application. Fifteen days before the expiry of three-and-a-half years, however he instituted a suit on 5th September, 1980 for cancellation of the order dated 21st March, 1977 passed on the basis of the compromise aforesaid on the ground that it was illegal and void. He also made an application for temporary injunction restraining the respondent No. 3 from evicting the petitioner in execution of the order dated 21st March, 1977. This application was allowed by the trial court by passing an order staying the execution of the order dated 2lst March, 1977. AN appeal was preferred against that order by respondent No. 3 which was allowed by the Civil Judge on 13th February, 1981. The Civil Judge has, inter alia, taken the view that the suit was barred by the provisions of order 23 rule 3-A, CPC and consequently no interim injunction could be granted to the petitioner as prayed for. It is this order of the Civil Judge which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) HAVING heard counsel for the petitioner at some length, I am of opinion that the impugned order does not suffer either from any manifest error of law or error of jurisdiction which may justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) IT was urged by counsel for the petitioner that Order 23 rule 3 CPC was not applicable for two reasons (1) because it applies only to a suit and (2) because of section 38 of the Act. I find no substance in either of these two arguments.