SHANTI DEVI Vs. SHAKTI METALS KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. In this case since counter and rejoinder affidavits were filed by the parties. On the request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the peti tion was directed to be heard finally. It was on 29-8-96, the writ petition was allowed and the operative portion of the judgment was dictated in the open Courts which reads as under: "the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Vth, Kanpur, dated 17-9-94 is quashed. The case is sent back to the respon dent No. 3 for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. The case will be decided within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before the respondent No. 3. Till then the respondent No. 2 shall not be dispossessed from the premises in question. "

(2.) I hereunder state the reasons for the above noted order: By means of this petition this petitioner prayed mainly for the following reliefs: (i) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17-9- 94; (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay a suitable and adequate amount by way of penalty of compensation for having initiated frivolous proceeding under Sec tion 23 of the Act and for withholding the pos session of the accommodation beyond 31-3-1994; (iii) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing him to execute the orders passed under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act in favour of the petitioner forthwith and without any delay; (iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the plaint in Civil Suit No. 531 of 1994, Smt. Sudesh Tulwar v. Shanti Devi, pending in the Court of Munsif City, Kanpur.

(3.) DURING pendency of the aforesaid rent appeal the respondent No. 1 entered into compromise on 6-2- 1991 with the petitioner and agreed to vacate the build ing in question subject to the condition that he was permitted to occupy the same by 31st March, 1994. The petitioner granted requisite time to the respondent No. 1 and ultimately an application was filed before the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal in terms of com promise. On the basis of the said applica tion the appeal was directed to be decided in terms of compromise.