http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  760 of 2008

PETITIONER: HARBANSH LAL

RESPONDENT: BRIJ RANI                                                           

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/01/2008

BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT          O R D E R  (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10338 of 2007

1.      Leave granted.   2.      Heard learned counsel for the parties.   3.      A revision case bearing No. 135 of 2001 (Harbansh  Lal vs. Brij Rani) was filed before the District Judge, Meerut,  which, on transfer, was dismissed by a judgment and order  dated 18th of October, 2002, in respect of which, a writ petition  was filed before the High Court at Allahabad.  The writ petition  was entertained by the High Court and on 10th of December,  2002, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad issued notice  on the writ petition and further directed the following :-       \023The petitioner will not be evicted from the  disputed accommodation till 28.2.2003 provided  the petitioner deposit the entire decreetal  amount with rent/damages upto December,  2002 within a month from today and further,  continues to deposit the rent/damages for the  months of January, 2003 and onwards by 7th of  the each succeeding months.\024  

    4. The aforesaid interim order passed on 10th December,  2002 was, according to the appellant, complied with and by  virtue of compliance, he has deposited the rent of the disputed  premises till January, 2008.        5. The original writ petition thereafter came up for  hearing and on 7th of September, 2006, the High Court passed,  inter alia, the following order :-  \023Having pragmatic approach, considering the  facts and circumstances of the and location/area  of the shop etc. it would be appropriate that the  rent of the disputed accommodation now be  increased to Rs. 2500/- per month from October,  2006.  It is accordingly directed that the tenant  shall pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month to  wards rent to the landlord till further order with  10% increases in the rent every 5 years which  shall be payable to the landlord by the day of  each succeeding month.  In case of default in  payment of the current rent as directed by this  court the landlord can get the disputed  accommodation vacated with the help of police  within a period of one month by going notice in  writing.   List for hearing after three months.  In the mean  time rejoinder affidavit may be filed.\024   

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

6.      It appears from the record that the said writ petition  came up for hearing on 9th of October, 2006, when the High  Court had passed the following order :- \023The case has been taken up in the revised list.   None has appeared to press the writ petition.   The writ petition is dismissed for want of  prosecution.  Interim order, if any, stands  vacated.\024

7.      When the petitioner \026 appellant herein came to know  that the writ petition itself was dismissed for default, an  application for restoration of the writ petition was filed by  him with an application for condonation of delay, which was  rejected by the High Court on 13th of March, 2007.  Feeling  aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection order, the present  appeal by Special Leave has been filed.    8.     Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and  after going through the impugned order as well as other  materials on record, we are of the view that the writ  petition, which was dismissed in default, should be  restored.  It is an admitted position that the appellant had  complied with the interim order passed by the High Court at  Allahabad during the pendency of the writ petition.  While  issuing notice on the writ application, this Court passed the  following order :-   \023Issue notice.   In the meantime, there shall be stay of  dispossession of the petitioner from the  premises in question on the condition that the  petitioner shall have to comply with the High  Court\022s order dated 7.9.2006 within a month  from the date of communication of this order, in  default of which stay order now granted shall  automatically stand vacated.\024                 

9.      Considering the aforesaid orders having been  complied with by the appellant and considering the reasons  for not appearing at the time the writ petition was dismissed  for default, we are of the view that the impugned order  should be set aside and the writ petition should be restored  for hearing.   10.     Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court  rejecting the application for restoration and allow the same.   Consequently, the writ petition is restored to its original file.   The High Court is now requested to dispose of the writ  application positively within three months from the date of  supply of a copy of this order to it after giving hearing to the  parties and after passing a reasoned order in accordance  with law.   11.     Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent  indicated above.  There will be no order as to costs.