PRAMOD KUMAR SOOD Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, prays for rendition of a mandamus to the respondents qua implementation of the order of allotment comprised in Annexure PD of 7th April, 2000, whereby Shop No. 17, has been allotted to the petitioner. However, the said premises are occupied by respondent No. 5. On notice being issued to the respondents and replies having come to be furnished therein, it, is unraveled that respondents No. 1 to 3 do not oppose the grant of relief, as prayed for. However, a, tenacious resistance to the according of relief in favour of the petitioner has been expressed by the respondent No. 5. The counsel for the respondent No. 5, has, canvassed before this Court that, in, the face of his having furnished rent or defrayed rent qua shop No. 17, to the respondents No. 1 to 3, hence, he acquires the status of a tenant under the respondents and, is, unevictable therefrom. She further canvasses that he being the recipient of a decree of a Civil Court, in, a Civil Suit wherein respondents No. 1 to 3 were defendants, comprised in Annexure R -5/2, as such, no mandamus can be issued against respondents No. 1 to 3, for theirs being directed to ensure the handing over the vacant possession of the disputed premises i.e. shop No. 17 to the petitioner, in as much, as, theirs having, hence, portrayed their acquiesce to the factum of respondent No. 5 being in legal possession of the disputed premises and having a right to continue in possession thereof. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 5, that in the face of the petitioner having tendered rent qua Shop No. 18, as such, the latter has acquired tenancy qua shop No. 18 and has, as such, forgone his right or waived his right, if any, qua shop No. 17, in, pursuance of Annexure -PD and is concomitantly barred from claiming its possession from respondent No. 5.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties heard at length.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , in view of the aforesaid discussion manifesting the fact that there is no strength in the contention of respondent No. 5, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to ensure that respondent No. 5 is evicted from the disputed premises in accordance with law and after eviction therefrom of respondent No. 5, the petitioner, be handed over its possession (i.e. shop No. 17). Moreover, it is ordered that before the petitioner occupies or possesses Shop No. 17, he shall furnish an undertaking to respondents No. 1 to 3 that he shall on occupying or possessing Shop No. 17 shall vacate Shop No. 18.