ANAND PRAKASH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25079 of 1990, 1991(2) RCR 217(All.) Om Prakash Kashyap v. The Addl. District Judge, Dehradun, respondent No. 3 landlord (the petitioner in the present matter) gave an undertaking to the Court that he will construct a building within nine months from the date the building becomes vacant and its possession is handed over to him in accordance with the provisions of Section 24(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and will hand over the possession of the newly constructed shop to Om Prakash Kashyap, who has been arrayed as respondent 2 in the present writ petition. The writ petition of the tenant was dismissed by this Court on 15.10.1990.

(2.) THE undertaking given by the petitioner was not complied with. Sri Om Prakash Kashyap filed a contempt petition in this Court being Contempt Petition No. 486 of 1992 making a grievance that despite undertaking having been given by the landlord and despite the fact that the new building has been constructed, the possession of one shop as directed by the Court in the aforesaid writ petition, has not been given to him. In the said contempt petition, the petitioner contended that though the new shop has been constructed but the District Magistrate has not fixed the rent as required under Section 24(2) of the Act. As soon as the rent is fixed, the possession of the premises will be handed over to the tenant, namely, Om Prakash Kashyap. In the contempt petition, this Court directed on 4.11.1992 that since a statutory obligation has been conferred by Section 24(2) of the Act on the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate should get the rent determined and inform the parties. It was further directed in the order passed in the contempt petition that within a month on the receipt of the information from the District Magistrate, the tenant will pay three months' rent to the landlord, if the landlord refuses to accept the rent, then the same will be deposited in the Court of the District Magistrate, and within a week of the receipt of the aforesaid rent, the landlord is directed to hand over possession of the shop to the tenant, namely, Om Prakash Kashyap. In case the landlord disobeys the order of the Court, he is liable to be punished for the contempt of Court. With the aforesaid directions, the contempt petition was disposed of.

(3.) IN accordance with the aforesaid fixation of rent, the contention of the tenant-respondent in the present matter is that he offered Rs. 2,280/- being three months rent of the newly constructed shop to the landlord, who refused the same. The tenant thereafter offered the same to the Counsel of the landlord but the Counsel also refused to accept the rent. Thereafter, the tenant-respondent sent the rent by money order and mentioned in the money order coupon that in future he is ready to pay continuously the rent in accordance with law in respect of the shop in dispute. The money order was also refused. Ultimately, the tenant filed an application in the Court of the Addl. District Magistrate (Administration) seeking permission to deposit the rent as directed by this Court in its order dated 4.11.1992 passed in the contempt matter, on basis of the rent determined by the order of the District Magistrate, dated 30.6.1993, referred to above, and further seeking a relief that the possession of the disputed premises should be handed over to the tenant-respondent.