SHEO NATH GUPTA Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) List has been revised. Learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant is present and has been heard. Counsel for plaintiff-opposite parties has not turned up.

(2.) This revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 27.5.93 passed on-Application C-2 in Original Suit No. 272 of 1991 whereby the application of the plaintiff-opposite party moved under Section 151. C.P.C. was allowed and the plaintiff-opposite party was permitted to carry out the repairs as prayed in application under Section 151, C.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant says that 'this application under Section 151. C.P.C. was not maintainable : firstly, because the suit itself was not maintainable, and secondly, because it was barred by the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The learned counsel took the Court through the entire file of the case. The facts which come out are that the defendant purchased the building in suit in insolvency proceedings from insolvency Court/Official Receiver in auction sale on 22.12.1964. At that time, one Chandra Kishore Trivedi was the tenant in the building. Suit No. 309 of 1969 was filed for the eviction of the tenant and was decreed on 25.4.72 on the basis of the compromise and the decree was passed in terms of the compromise. The main condition of compromise was that the tenant was to vacate the building and deliver vacant possession to the present defendant upto 25.4.1977. Pratap Narain Mishra, opposite party No. 2 father of plaintiff filed suit for injunction on 10.9.72 but the suit was got dismissed as father shifted to some other building. An application was moved, before the Prescribed Authority under Section 28 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 12.7.90 which was registered as P.A. Case No. 48 of 1990 and was decided on 21.9.91. The Prescribed Authority held that Pramod Kumar Mishra, Opposite Party No. 1 plaintiff, was not the tenant of the building and. therefore, application under Section 28 of the Act was not maintainable and thus application under Section 28 was rejected. Against that order no remedy in the higher Court was sought. The present injunction Suit No. 272 of 1991 was filed for injunction for restraining the present revisionist from taking the possession of the building in Execution Case No. 10 of 1983 passed in execution of the compromise decree dated 25.4.1972 passed in Eviction Suit No. 309 of 1969 against Chandra Kishore Trivedi. In this suit, the present application under Section 151. C.P.C. was moved for permitting the plaintiff to carry out the repairs.