Satish Chandra and others vs Shiv Kumar Gupta and others

S.U. Khan, J.—This is tenant''s writ petition. Their only intention appears to delay the proceedings of the suit indefinitely. On enquiry from the Court, regarding rate of rent and position of its payment, learned Counsel for the tenantspetitioners clearly stated that he was not even aware about the rate of rent. The suit for eviction is pending for 21 years. Initially Natthu Lal was the tenant. Plaintiffsrespondent Nos. 1 to 7 filed the suit. Sri Natthu Lal died during pendency of suit and was substituted by his heirs including Hari Shankar. Now Hari Shanker has also died and the seven petitioners are his heirs. It appears that in the year 2002, landlordsplaintiffs sought some amendment in the plaint, which was allowed. Thereafter, defendants including Hari Shanker filed an application dated 13.10.2007 under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action. The application was rejected on 14.11.2003. Against the said order, S.C.C. Revision No. 33 of 2003 was filed. The said revision is still pending. During pendency of revision, Hari Shanker, one of the tenants/legal representatives of original tenant Natthu Lal, died leaving behind widow, five sons and five married daughters. Hari Shanker was one of the revisionists in the revision. Substitution application was filed by the petitioners. In the substituting application, married daughters were sought to be impleaded as proforma respondents. Substitution application was allowed on 17.5.2008. On 24.5.2008, plaintiffs landlords, who are respondents in the revision, filed an application that service upon married daughters of Hari Shanker might be dispensed with. The said application was allowed on 10.7.2008. Said order has been challenged in this writ petition.

In Para9 of the writ petition, it has categorically been stated that "but the married daughters were living separate just after their respective marriages at their respective inlaws, houses. These married daughters were having no concern in respect of any dispute of their father Hari Shanker particularly the litigation''s pending with regard to tenancy etc. rather they were insisting their father Hari Shanker for leaving the litigation as well as the dispute premises."

After the above assertion in Para9 of the writ petition, the petitioners cannot assert that services must also be affected on their married sisters.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

A.D.J., Fast Track Court (Court No. 19), Bulandshahar, where S.C.C. Revision No. 33 of 2003 is pending, is directed to positively decide the revision within four months.

Absolutely, no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties. If Court below is inclined to grant any adjournment on any ground to any of the parties, then it shall be on very heavy cost, which shall not be less than Rs. 750/ per adjournment.

Similarly, if revision is dismissed, then suit must be decided by the Trial Court very expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of dismissal of the revision and in the suit also, absolutely, no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties. If Trial Court is inclined to grant any adjournment on any ground to any of the parties, then it shall be on very heavy cost, which shall not be less than Rs. 750/ per adjournment.

District Judge, Bulandshahar is directed to ascertain that how many S.C.C. suits in between landlord and tenant are pending more than 10 years and shall make special efforts for decision of the said suits.

Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order to District Judge, Bulandshahar within a week.