Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
(Delivered by Hon’ble Ms. Poonam Srivastav, J.)
1. Heard Sri Manish Trivedi and
Sri A.K. Bajpai, learned counsels for the
petitioners, Ms. Shikha Singh Advocate
for the respondent no. 1, Sri Nikhil
Kumar Advocate for the respondent no.
2 and Sri M. K. Gupta Advocate for the
respondent no. 3.
2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits
have been exchanged and as agreed
between the counsels for the parties,
writ petition is heard finally.
3. Notices were accepted by Sri
M.K. Gupta Advocate on behalf of
respondent no. 3 Yogesh Kishan Dhall,
son of Late Kishan Chand Dhall, Sri
Nikhil Kumar Advocate on behalf of
respondent no. 2 Sohan Agrawal and
Ms. Shikha Singh Advocate on behalf of
respondent no. 1 Bharat Press. Counter
affidavit has been filed on behalf
respondent nos. 1 and 2. Sri M.K. Gupta
Advocate filed an application on
3.9.2009 bringing on record a
compromise application on behalf of the
petitioners and respondent no. 3. Joint
affidavits have been filed by Anoop
Chandra Agrawal and Sri Neeraj Dhall
where the parties have entered into an
agreement on account of the reason that
father of the respondent no. 3 who is a
very old man and was admitted in Apolo
Hospital, New Delhi and therefore he
requested for some sympathetic
consideration. Finally they entered into
an agreement after institution of the writ
petition that the respondent no. 3 will
continue as tenant of the disputed shop
on the ground floor for a period of 5
years at the government rental value of
Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of
order of the court and parties have
agreed that for a period of 5 years, the
petitioners will not seek eviction of the
respondent no. 3 alone and the
respondent no. 3 has further agreed to
vacate the disputed shop in recognition
of the fact that the petitioner no. 1 Dr.
Ram Chandra Agrawal will require the
shop for his proposed registered clinic
for his private practice only.
Accordingly the writ petition was
decided in terms of compromise viz.-aviz
between the petitioners and
respondent no. 3 on 11.9.2009.
4. The dispute relates to a shop
situated on the ground floor of
accommodation No. 106/93, K.P.
Kakkar Road, Allahabad. The
respondents are three different tenants
occupying entire ground floor. The
respondent no. 1 is a tenant at the rate of
Rs. 100/- per month and respondent nos.
2 and 3 are paying Rs. 200/- per month
as rent. The petitioner no. 1 retired as
eye surgeon from Sitapur Eye Hospital
Trust and was living with his family in
his ancestral house. The petitioner no. 2
is his only son who has now shifted
from Sultanpur to Allahabad with his
entire family in the year 1995 and is
living in the residential accommodation
situated above the shop. Petitioner no. 1
and his wife have also shifted to
Allahabad and are living on the second
floor with his son petitioner no. 2.
5. A release application was filed
by the petitioners under Section 21(1)(a)
of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) for release of
three shops on the ground floor. The
need and requirement pleaded in the
release application is that the petitioner
no. 2 was previously enrolled as an
Advocate but did not practice and