RAJ SINGH versus ACHAL MISHRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 01-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAJ SINGH 
v. 
ACHAL MISHRA AND ORS. 
MAY I, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA, T ARUN CHATTERJEE AND 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction-Appeal between the occupant and owner 
A 
B 
of the building remitted to High Court for disposal on merits, by Supreme C 
Court-The condition precedent/or pursuing the writ petition in High Court, 
was to deposit a particular sum as arrears of rent by occupier-Application 
for modification of order of Supreme Court-Non-deposit of amount-
Dismissal of writ Petition on account of non-deposit and order of release of 
building in favour of the owner-Order of Supreme Court modified-Held: 
Occupant directed to comply with modified order-Proceeding of High Court D 
would depend on the compliance of order. 
This Court, while deciding the appeal between the parties herein, had 
remitted the matter to High Court with direction to appellant-occupant to 
deposit sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards arrears of rent. This was as a condition E 
precedent for enabling him to pursue his writ petition filed in 1979 in the 
High Court. Since the sum was not paid within stipulated time, High Court 
dismissed the Writ Petition. The Eviction Officer, in view of non-compliance 
of order of depositing the sum and dismissal of the Writ Petition by High 
Court as a result, passed the order of release of the building in favour of the 
owner-respondent. 
The order of the Eviction Officer was stayed by the High Court in Writ 
Petition filed in 2005. Hence the present appeal. The order to deposit the sum 
was modified by this Court. 
F 
Appellant-occupant contended that he had not deposited the amount as G 
directed by this Court, because the direction for payment of the sum of 
Rs. 3,00,000/- was without taking note of the fact that a part of the sum was 
already deposited during pendency of the appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
613 
H 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: Jn view of modified order, the orders challenged in both the 
appeals are set aside and it is directed that if the occupant does not comply 
with the modified direction of this Court, the Writ Petition filed by him in the 
High Court would stand dismissed insofar as it relates to him and the interim 
order passed in Writ Petition of2005 will stand vacated. Eviction Officer is 
B directed to deliver that part of the building in occupation of the occupant to 
the owner thereof forthwith. If the occupant complies with the modified order 
and deposits the sum ordered or makes up the deposit of the sum as ordered, 
the Writ Petition of 1979 would be heard and disposed of on merits 
expeditiously by the High Court and the order for delivery passed by the 
Eviction Officer will stand set aside leaving the parties to work out their 
C remedies in accordance with law as per the directions therein. 
(615-H; 616-A-CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2379 of2006. 
From the Judgment/Order dated 29.8.2005 of the High Court of Allahabad 
D (Lucknow Bench) in C.M. Application No. 1083 of 2005 in W.P. No. 803 
(RIC) 1979. 
E 
F 
WITH 
(Civil Appeal 2380 of2006) 
Manoj Swarup, Lalita Kohli, Mona Rajvanshi and Anubhav Kumar for 
Manoj Swamp & Co. for the Appellant. 
Sunil Kumar Jain, S. Borthakur, Manish Kumar and B. Barooah for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. In civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.1161 of2006 the order of the 
G High Court passed in Writ Petition No.803(R/c) of 1979 is challenged, by 
which the High Court dismissed the writ petition in so far as it related to the 
appellant herein, on the ground of non-compliance with the directions issued 
by this Court in Civil Appeal No.3322 of 1998. In that appeal, while remitting 
the writ petition to the High Court, this Court had directed the appellant to 
deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the arrears of rent and to pay the rent 
H @ Rs.1,000/- in future without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, but 
RAJ SINGH v. ACHAL MISHRA [BALASUBRAMANY AN, J.] 
615 
as a condition precedent for enabling him to pursue his writ petition in the A 
High Court filed along with respondent no.I in the civil appeal. Since the sum 
of Rs.3,00,000/- was not paid within the time fixed by this Court, the High 
Court, in the light of the clear provision in that behalf in the judgment of this 
Court, dismissed the writ petition, thus, depriving the appellant of an 
opportunity to argue his
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.