RAMPHAL Vs. ANIL KUMAR BHARDWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. Sri Ramphal, the petitioner filed the writ petition No. 28293 of 1993 in this Court with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued quashing the orders dated 3-8-93 and 25-3-89 (Annexures 6 and 7) and a mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders and the respondents be directed not to demolish the wall/accommodation of the petitioner bearing Municipal No. 164, Civil Lines, Bareilly.

(2.) THE petitioner has alleged that he is a tenant of the accommodation owned by Sri Sewa Ram bearing Municipal No. 164, Civil Lines, Bareilly for a long time. THE accommodation is a very old one. THEre is a registered agreement to sell executed by Sri Sewa Ram and his son Sri Satya Prakash, the owners of the property in dispute to the petitioner. Respondent No. 4, Sri Anil Bhardwaj (alleged contemner) has his hotel just to the east of the petitioner's accommodation. THE contemner also claims that an agreement of sale in his favour exists. THE agreement deed was executed by Sri Satya Prakash, s/o Sri Sewa Ram. THE contemner made several efforts to dislodge the petitioner from his accommodation because his hotel is just behind the accommodation to the east of he petitioner's accommodation and the contemner is likely to be benefitted from the removal of front wall if the respondent No. 4 gets success to get the petitioner evicted from the tenanted accommodation. In order to achieve his aim, he brought respondents 1 to 3 in his favour and collusively got an order for demolition of this accommodation in dispute passed against the contemner, of which the petitioner had no notice. THE contemner did not contest that notice and an order was passed by respondent No. 3 to demolish the wall of the petitioner. On coming to know about this collusive proceedings between the contemner and respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner filed a civil suit No. 269/90 in the court of Civil Judge, Bareilly for a specific performance of contract existing in his favour. A stay order passed by the learned Civil Judge is still operative. THE petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (respondent No. 2), which was dismissed as the petitioner was not a party to the original proceedings. THEreafter, the petitioner moved this court in the aforesaid writ for the aforesaid prayers.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the contemner Sri Anil Kumar Bhardwaj, dated 25-5-95, the allegations made by the petitioner, had been denied and it has been claimed that only when the contempt petition was served upon him on 9-5-95, he learned about the main petition as well as this contempt petition. Before that, he had no knowledge. Therefore, the question of violating this Court's order does not arise.