JOLLY BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 24. 2. 1995 in Revenue 3 Appeal No. 4/71 (2) /94-95-Amravati, passed by the Additional collector, Amravati, by which the Appellate Authority under C. P. And Berar Letting of Premises And Rent Control Order, 1949 (herein referred as Rent Control Order) had set aside the common judgment and order passed by the Rent Controller, Amavati on 30. 5. 1994 in Revenue Case Nos. 135/71 (2) /88-89 and 136/71 (2) /88-89 of Amravati.

(2.) The original petitioner M/s Jolly Brothers Private Limited a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956 through its Director Shri Surendra Sobharam Jolly had filed the present writ petitions in this Court under Clause 13 (3) (vi) and (viii) of the Rent Control Order. In fact the said Company Jolly brothers Private Limited originally had instituted proceedings for grant of permission under Clause 13 (3) (vi) and (viii) of the Rent control Order before the Rent Controller, Amravati in respect of the suit house property located in Camp Area of Amravati, Taq. and district : Amravati of Nazul Plot No. 3, Sheet No. 37 with land admeasuring 5200 sq. feet with a building consisting of ground floor and first floor owned by the said Company. These writ petitions were admitted by this Court on 13. 6. 1995. During the pendency of the present writ petitions, Surendranath, Smt. Sudarshan and Vikas had jointly filed a Civil Application no. 1213/1006 in this petition and claimed therein that in the litigation before Company Law Board, consent terms were recorded for settlement between the parties to that litigation and were accepted by the parties as well as by the Company Law Board by its order on 13. 10. 2003 and in accordance with those consent terms three applicants named above in C. A. No. 1213/2006 were allotted the suit property in entirety leaving no interest with the Company m/s Jolly Brothers Private Limited. In other words the said three applicants became the owners of the suit property. The application was thus for substitution of three names as petitioners in place of original Company. That application came to be allowed on 9. 11. 2006 and the said order is reproduced below for convenience.

(3.) Perusal of the above order shows that the respondent no. 2 tenant had not contested the said application nor objected to allowing of the said application at the time of hearing on the said application. That application was allowed by the aforesaid order. While carrying out the amendment, however, the aforesaid three names have been shown as 1a, 1b and 1c in addition to original petitioner M/s Jolly Brothers Private Limited obviously as petitioner No. 1. However, that is not the purport of the said order as these applicants were to be substituted in place of the Company m/s Jolly Brothers Private Limited as per the aforesaid order. Hence, the amendment has been wrongly carried out. The Office is directed to call upon the petitioner to carry out the amendment properly in accordance with these observations.