Ajay Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The facts of the case is that one Husain Shah executed a rent deed and transferred the disputed shop to the petitioner on 27.3.2008, averring therein that petitioner was doing business since 2005-06. Pursuant to the order dated 10.12.2009, the name of the respondent No. 6 was mutated. Petitioner has filed Misc. Suit being No. 32 of 2011 claiming disputed rent. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the said suit passed order on 21.9.2013 which reads thus-

It further appears that application bearing No. 1041, filed by the petitioner for transfer of tenancy right was dismissed on 10.12.2009 by the Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jalaun and his decision was communicated to the petitioner on 6.1.2010. Petitioner has challenged that order by filing appeal bearing No. 1 to 2010 before the District Magistrate, Orai which was dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2014, holding thus-

Aggrieved by the aforesaid, respondent No. 6, Arvind Kumar Singh Yadav in whose name plot has been allotted has filed writ petition before this Court bearing No. 48851 of 2014 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 23.3.2015, appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The order passed by this Court in the writ petition, referred above reads thus-

"1. It is admitted that shop in question was never auctioned by Nagar Palika Parishad in favour of petitioner. That being so, petitioner has no right to claim transfer of tenancy rights of shop in question in his favour.

In these facts and circumstances and the admitted position, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the order impugned in this writ petition warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed."

A perusal of the order passed by this Court shows that petitioner has no right to claim transfer of tenancy right of the shop which was never auctioned by the Nagar Palika Parishad in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is now aggrieved by the advertisement dated 1.8.2015, appended as Annexure-10 to the writ petition whereby plot in question is being auctioned by the Nagar Palika Parishad.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that from the record itself, it is apparent that shop in question was never auctioned in favour of the petitioner and he has no right over the same as has been held by this Court in Writ Petition No. 48851 of 2014.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that grievance of the petitioner has been considered by this Court in the Writ Petition No. 48851 of 2014 (Arvind Kumar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others) and the Court has found that the shop in question was never auctioned by the Nagar Palika Parishad in favour of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner in this petition cannot claim any right of transfer of tenancy right. Once the claim of partner has already been rejected by this Court, virtually this is second writ petition for the same cause of action. As the claim of the petitioner has attained finality in Writ Petition No. 48851 of 2014, we are of the view that this petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. This petition is accordingly dismissed.