Pradeep Mehrotra v. Harischandra Vishwakarma and others)

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashwini Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding for release of the premises No. B-31/ 21-A-1 situated at Mohalla- Lanka, District Varanasi initiated at the instance of respondent no.1/ landlord was registered as P.A. case No. 03 of 2019 before prescribed authority. The prescribed authority vide order dated 7.9.2013 rejected the release application but appeal filed by landlord/ respondent has been allowed vide order dated 28.11.2018. Petitioner/ tenant challenged the appellate order dated

28.11.2018 before this Court by petition under Article 227 No. 487 of 2019 which was ultimately allowed vide order dated

2.11.2022 setting aside the appellate order dated 28.11.2018 and matter was remitted back before the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh. In pursuance of the remand order dated 2.11.2022, appeal filed by petitioner/ tenant has been heard and dismissed vide order dated 13.2.2024 by appellate Court. Petitioner/ tenant again filed Misc. petition under Article 227 No. 4280 of 2024 (Civil) before this Court which has been dismissed vide order dated 28.8.2024. Petitioner/ tenant 2 A227 No. 8650 of 2025 challenged the proceeding of Misc. case No. 3 of 2019 initiated by landlord/ respondent under Section 23 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before this Court by Matter under Article 227 No. 9337 of 2024 (Civil) which has been dismissed vide order dated

28.8.2024. Two review applications filed by petitioner/ tenant against both the orders are pending before this Court as review application No. 521 of 2024 and review application No. 525 of

2024. Petitioner/ tenant filed an objection under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code in Misc. Case No. 03 of 2019 which has been registered as Misc Case No. 155 of 2024. Petitioner/ Tenant filed a transfer application No. 977 of 2024 before District Judge for transferring the P.A. Case No. 03 of 2019 and Misc. Case No. 155 of 2024 which has been rejected under the impugned order dated 16.7.2025. Hence this petition on behalf of petitioner/ tenant for following reliefs:- "(i) Issue an order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 16.7.2025 passed by learned District Judge, Varanasi in Misc. Case (T.A) No. 340 of 2025 (Pradeep Mehrotra Vs. Harischandra Vishwakarma and others). (ii) Issue an order or direction to stay the proceeding of P.A. case No. 3 of 2019 (Harish Chandra Vishwakarma Vs. Piyush Mehrotra and others) and Misc. Case No. 155 of 2024 (Pradeep Mehrotra Vs. Harischandra Vishwakarma and others) pending before the prescribed authority Varanasi."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that District Judge without considering the grievance of the petitioner has rejected the transfer application filed by petitioner. He further submitted that impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the material evidence on record. He submitted that execution Court is not proceeding in proper manner, as such, reasonable apprehension has arose in the mind of the petitioner that he will not get justice from the Court concerned. He submitted that impugned order dated 16.7.2025 3 A227 No. 8650 of 2025 should be set aside and transfer application filed by petitioner should be allowed. He placed reliance upon the following judgement of Apex Court in support of his argument:- " (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 744 P.K. Ghosh, I.A.S. and Another Vs. J.G. Rajput"

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that petitioner is only interested to linger on the proceeding by one way or the other. He submitted that release proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been decided by appellate Court in favour of landlord and order has been maintained by this Court. He submitted that review application filed by petitioner is pending but this Court has clarified that pendency of the review application does not mean that any interim order is operating in the review application. He further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by District Judge rejecting the transfer application filed by petitioner. He submitted that petition filed by petitioner should be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is also no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been allowed by Appellate Court in favour of respondent/ landlord directing the petitioner/ tenant to vacate the shop in question and the order of appellate Court has been maintained by this Court by dismissing the petition filed by petitioner/ tenant. There is also no dispute about the fact that no interim order is operating in the pending review application filed by petitioner/ tenant. There is also no dispute about the fact that transfer application filed on behalf of petitioner/ tenant to transfer the misc. case of execution proceeding has been rejected under the impugned order.

7. It is material to mention that execution proceeding initiated 4 A227 No. 8650 of 2025 by plaintiff/ respondent as well as the objection under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by petitioner/ tenant is pending before Execution Court, as such, petitioner should participate in the execution proceeding which will be decided in accordance with law.

8. The perusal of the transfer application filed by petitioner as well as the order impugned passed by the District Judge demonstrate that there is no illegality in the order rejecting the transfer application filed by petitioner.

9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order dated

16.7.2025 passed by District Judge rejecting the transfer application filed by petitioner.

10. The instant petition is dismissed accordingly. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) September 17, 2025 Vandana Y. VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashwini Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding for release of the premises No. B-31/ 21-A-1 situated at Mohalla- Lanka, District Varanasi initiated at the instance of respondent no.1/ landlord was registered as P.A. case No. 03 of 2019 before prescribed authority. The prescribed authority vide order dated 7.9.2013 rejected the release application but appeal filed by landlord/ respondent has been allowed vide order dated 28.11.2018. Petitioner/ tenant challenged the appellate order dated

28.11.2018 before this Court by petition under Article 227 No. 487 of 2019 which was ultimately allowed vide order dated

2.11.2022 setting aside the appellate order dated 28.11.2018 and matter was remitted back before the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh. In pursuance of the remand order dated 2.11.2022, appeal filed by petitioner/ tenant has been heard and dismissed vide order dated 13.2.2024 by appellate Court. Petitioner/ tenant again filed Misc. petition under Article 227 No. 4280 of 2024 (Civil) before this Court which has been dismissed vide order dated 28.8.2024. Petitioner/ tenant 2 A227 No. 8650 of 2025 challenged the proceeding of Misc. case No. 3 of 2019 initiated by landlord/ respondent under Section 23 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before this Court by Matter under Article 227 No. 9337 of 2024 (Civil) which has been dismissed vide order dated

28.8.2024. Two review applications filed by petitioner/ tenant against both the orders are pending before this Court as review application No. 521 of 2024 and review application No. 525 of

2024. Petitioner/ tenant filed an objection under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code in Misc. Case No. 03 of 2019 which has been registered as Misc Case No. 155 of 2024. Petitioner/ Tenant filed a transfer application No. 977 of 2024 before District Judge for transferring the P.A. Case No. 03 of 2019 and Misc. Case No. 155 of 2024 which has been rejected under the impugned order dated 16.7.2025. Hence this petition on behalf of petitioner/ tenant for following reliefs:- "(i) Issue an order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 16.7.2025 passed by learned District Judge, Varanasi in Misc. Case (T.A) No. 340 of 2025 (Pradeep Mehrotra Vs. Harischandra Vishwakarma and others). (ii) Issue an order or direction to stay the proceeding of P.A. case No. 3 of 2019 (Harish Chandra Vishwakarma Vs. Piyush Mehrotra and others) and Misc. Case No. 155 of 2024 (Pradeep Mehrotra Vs. Harischandra Vishwakarma and others) pending before the prescribed authority Varanasi."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that District Judge without considering the grievance of the petitioner has rejected the transfer application filed by petitioner. He further submitted that impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the material evidence on record. He submitted that execution Court is not proceeding in proper manner, as such, reasonable apprehension has arose in the mind of the petitioner that he will not get justice from the Court concerned. He submitted that impugned order dated 16.7.2025 3 A227 No. 8650 of 2025 should be set aside and transfer application filed by petitioner should be allowed. He placed reliance upon the following judgement of Apex Court in support of his argument:- " (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 744 P.K. Ghosh, I.A.S. and Another Vs. J.G. Rajput"

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that petitioner is only interested to linger on the proceeding by one way or the other. He submitted that release proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been decided by appellate Court in favour of landlord and order has been maintained by this Court. He submitted that review application filed by petitioner is pending but this Court has clarified that pendency of the review application does not mean that any interim order is operating in the review application. He further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by District Judge rejecting the transfer application filed by petitioner. He submitted that petition filed by petitioner should be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is also no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been allowed by Appellate Court in favour of respondent/ landlord directing the petitioner/ tenant to vacate the shop in question and the order of appellate Court has been maintained by this Court by dismissing the petition filed by petitioner/ tenant. There is also no dispute about the fact that no interim order is operating in the pending review application filed by petitioner/ tenant. There is also no dispute about the fact that transfer application filed on behalf of petitioner/ tenant to transfer the misc. case of execution proceeding has been rejected under the impugned order.

7. It is material to mention that execution proceeding initiated 4 A227 No. 8650 of 2025 by plaintiff/ respondent as well as the objection under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by petitioner/ tenant is pending before Execution Court, as such, petitioner should participate in the execution proceeding which will be decided in accordance with law.

8. The perusal of the transfer application filed by petitioner as well as the order impugned passed by the District Judge demonstrate that there is no illegality in the order rejecting the transfer application filed by petitioner.

9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order dated

16.7.2025 passed by District Judge rejecting the transfer application filed by petitioner.

10. The instant petition is dismissed accordingly. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) September 17, 2025 Vandana Y. VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad