KALAWATI REJA Vs. II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying that the order of the II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur dated 17 -9 -1981 refusing to consolidate Suit No. 1593 of 1980, Smt. Kalawati Reja (Plaintiff) v. Manoj Kumar and Ors. (Defendants), with Rent Case No. 90 of 1979, Manoj Kumar and Ors. (Petitioners) v. M/s. Heera Lal and Sons and Ors. (opposite parties), be quashed and the two cases be directed to be consolidated.

(2.) THE Petitioner is a tenant of two portions of house No. 51/41, Nayaganj, Kanpur, which consists of a shop on the front side and three godowns behind it. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the landlord of the premises. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 requested the Petitioner to vacate the premises so that it could be reconstructed. The Petitioner agreed to release a portion of the accommodation. It was agreed between the parties that the landlord shall reconstruct the premises in phases, and the same shall be leased out to the Petitioner in phases, i.e. the Petitioner shall release a portion which would be reconstructed and let out to her and then she will release another portion which shall be reconstructed and leased out to her thereafter. This agreement was reduced into writing. It appears that thereafter the Respondents found some difficulty in reconstructing the premises in phases, and they applied for the release of the accommodation in the occupation of the Petitioner by means of an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The Petitioner filed an objection on the ground that under the agreement entered into between the parties, she was required to release the premises in her occupation in phases, and was not liable to vacate the entire premises without the reconstructed portions in phases being leased out to her. According to the Respondents, the building could not be reconstructed in phases, and had to be demolished as a whole before any reconstruction could take place. The release application under Section 21 was accordingly made on the ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition and had to be demolished first before any reconstruction could take place. The Respondents, however, in paragraph No. 25 of the petition gave an assurance that after the new constructions were brought into existence, the Petitioner would be given the first preference to occupy them. The objection, on the other band, was that the release of the entire building was not called for, and the Petitioner was not liable to be evicted there from in view of the agreement entered into between the parties. The release application accordingly deserved to be rejected. It appears that during the pendency of the release application, the Petitioner filed a suit (No. 1593 of 1980) referred to above in the Court of Munsif City, Kanpur for specific performance of the agreement entered into between the parties in respect of the reconstruction of the premises and for letting out of the same In accordance with its terms. An application was moved to the District Judge to transfer the suit to the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur where the release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was pending. The District Judge, by an order dated 25 -7 -1981, transferred the suit to the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur. It appears that the release application, by some order, was transferred to the Court of Munsif -Magistrate, Kanpur, and it was again re -transferred to the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur by an order dated 7 -8 -1981 passed on the application moved by the Respondents themselves. These two proceedings are thus pending before the II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur. The Petitioner, by an application dated 4 -8 -1981, prayed that the two proceedings be consolidated. Although in the prayer part this specific prayer was not made, but in the body of the application it was stated that these two proceedings be consolidated. This application was filed in the Rent Case, i.e. in the release application pending before the II Additional Civil Judge. The Civil Judge by an order dated 7 -8 -1981 rejected the application on three main grounds -firstly that the powers of the Prescribed Authority and the procedure to be followed by him in a proceeding under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were different from those which have to be exercised and followed by a Civil Court trying a suit; secondly that there was no specific provision for consolidation of a release application with a civil suit; and thirdly that the release application had to be disposed of within a short time as prescribed by the Act while there was no time limit for the disposal of a civil suit. Hence if it was consolidated with the suit, the release proceeding will get inordinately delayed. Aggrieved by the order refusing consolidation of the two proceedings, the Petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashing of the order of the II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur dated 17 -9 -1981. The reliefs sought in the petition are as follows:

(3.) IT seems to me that consolidation of two actions, apart from other considerations, is warranted if they are within the same jurisdiction, i.e. the authority which is trying one action is trying the other also in the same capacity, and the action is of a like nature. Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 1, Section 110, at page 1349, states: