# Anand Mohan Sharma v. Niranjan Lal Gupta and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 770
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-12-11
- **Case number:** Judge in Writ Petition No. 35613 of 2002
- **Bench:** G.P. Mathur, A.C.J. Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-mohan-sharma-v-niranjan-lal-gupta-and-others-39986
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE G.P. MATHUR, A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. (589) of 2002

Anand Mohan Sharma
...Appellant
Versus
Niranjan Lal Gupta and others

 ...Respondents

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act- 197216(i)
(h)
release
application-
undertaking given by the tenant- writ
petition dismissed by granting three
months period, provided the undertaking
is given before the R.E.C.O. within three
days- despite of undertaking the tenant
preferred Appeal- R.E.C.O. issued form
'e' but refused by the District Magistrate-
challenge
made
before
High Court-
allowed the writ petition- direction
issued to the District Magistrate for
eviction- can not be interfered in Special
Appeal.

Held- Para 20

It
is
clear
that
High
Court
while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution can issue appropriate
directions for enforcing an undertaking
given by a party before it and learned
single Judge while allowing the writ
petition vide its judgement dated 23rd
October, 2002 has not committed any
error in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution. We do
not find any error in the judgment of
learned single Judge allowing the writ
petition. There is one more reason due to
which tenant is not entitled for any
indulgence in this appeal, i.e., according
to undertaking as given in the affidavit,
the tenant was liable to vacate the
accommodation within one year from the
date of disposal of the writ petition i.e.
within one year from 16th August, 1996
i.e. by 15th August, 1997. Even after
15th August, 1997 more than five years
elapsed and the land lord has not been
able to get possession. This is an
additional reason for not exercising any
discretion in favour of tenant in writ
jurisdiction.
Case law discussed:
2000(5) SCC -44
AIR 1979 SC-1528
1995 Supp. (2) SCC-539
1998 (6) SCC-507
JT 1992 (2) SC-65
AIR 1980 Delhi 39
AIR 1984 SC 1826

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. We have heard Sri Ravi Kant,
Senior Advocate, appearing alongwith Sri
Manoj Kumar Pandey for the appellant
and Sri Arjun Singhal appearing on behalf
of respondent no. 1.

2. By this appeal, the appellant has
challenged the judgment dated 23rd
October, 2002 passed by learned single
Judge in Writ Petition No. 35613 of 2002
(Niranjan
Lal
Gupta
vs.
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad
and
another)
allowing the writ petition filed by
respondent no. 1.

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal,
briefly stated, are; father of respondent
no. 1 moved an application under Section
16 (1) (b) of U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 for release of accommodation
of which appellant was tenant. . The
release application was rejected by Rent
Control and Eviction Officer vide his
order dated 13th January, 1987. A
revision was filed against the above order
which too was dismissed vide order dated
20th
November,
1990.
Father
of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Anand Mohan Sharma V. Niranjan Lal Gupta and others 771
respondent no. 1, late Sri Kundan Lal,
filed writ petition no. 3351 of 1991
challenging both the orders dated 13th
January, 1987 and 20th November, 1990.
Kundan Lal died during pendency of the
writ petition and in his place respondent
no. 1 was substituted as his heir. In writ
petition no. 3351 of 1991 a joint affidavit
was filed by the appellant as well as
respondent No. 1 to the effect that
appellant is ready to vacate the disputed
accommodation within a period of one
year
from
the
date
of filing the
compromise. Respondent no. 1 agreed to
allow time to vacate. On the basis of
aforesaid affidavit filed by appellant and
respondent no. 1 and other heirs of
Kundan Lal, this Court passed an order
dated 16th August, 1996 dismissing the
writ petition in view of the facts stated in
the
application
filed
on
15.5.1995.
Appellant filed an application in the
aforesaid writ petition for recall of the
order dated 16th August, 1996 which was
dismissed
on
1st
August,
2001,
respondent no. 1 filed an application
before the Rent Control and Eviction
Officer for execution of the order passed
by this Court which according to him,
amounted to an order of release of the
building in favour of the land lord. The
Rent
Control
and
Eviction
Officer
recommended for issuance of Form-C.
Form C was issued but thereafter Form-D
was not issued. Respondent No. 1 filed
writ petition no. 9836 of 2002 which was
disposed of on 7th March, 2002 directing
the District Magistrate to pass appropriate
order in accordance with law on the
recommendation of the Rent Control and
Eviction Officer dated 22nd December,
2001. The District Magistrate passed an
order dated 21st May, 2002 refusing to
issue Form-D. The order dated 21st May,
2002 was challenged by respondent no. 1
by filing writ petition no. 35613 of 2002.
The aforesaid writ petition has been
allowed by learned single Judge vide his
judgment dated 23rd October, 2002
against which present special appeal has
been filed. At the time of passing of
judgment dated 23rd October, 2002, the
appellant, who was present in the Court,
offered to vacate the building provided he
is granted reasonable time. Learned single
Judge while passing the judgment dated
23rd October, 2002 granted three months
time to the appellant to vacate the
building
subject
to
condition
that
appellant submit an undertaking in
writing before the Rent Control and
Eviction Officer, Allahabad within three
days. Counsel for the respondents has
stated that in pursuance of the order of
this Court dated 23rd October, 2002, the
appellant
has
submitted
a
written
undertaking
before
the
District
Magistrate, Allahabad on 25th October,
2002 which fact has not been denied by
counsel for the appellant.

4. The counsel for the respondents
has raised a preliminary objection by
submitting
that
appellant
having
undertaken in writ petition no. 35613 of
2002 to vacate the premises within three
months and having also filed a written
undertaking
before
the
District
Magistrate, Allahabad on 25th October,
2002, is not entitled to appeal against the
said judgment of learned single Judge.
The learned counsel for the respondents
contended that the appellant having given
undertaking before learned single Judge
to vacate the premises, he is not entitled
to file this appeal and this appeal is not
liable to be entertained on this ground
alone.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
5. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate,
appearing for the appellant, refuting the
above submissions, submitted that special
appeal
is
fully
maintainable
and
undertaking given by the appellant was in
pursuance of the direction of this Court
dated 23rd October, 2002 and the said
undertaking cannot preclude the appellant
from preferring this appeal. He placed
reliance on apex court judgment in (2000)
5SCC 44, Jagdish Lal vs. Parma Nand.

6. Sri Ravi Kant while making his
submission on merits of the appeal, raised
following contentions:

(i) In earlier writ petition no. 3351 of
1991 no undertaking on behalf of the
appellant can be read in the affidavit filed
in the Court. He contended that the
statement in paragraph 10 of the affidavit
as extracted by learned single Judge in his
judgment, was subject to extension of
certain facilities by the landlord and the
landlord
having
not
extended
the
facilities,
the
appellant
immediately
moved an application for recall of the said
order, hence there was no undertaking on
his behalf to vacate the premises and
learned single Judge committed error in
reading the affidavit of the appellant as
undertaking.

(ii) The District Magistrate has rightly
refused to issue Form-D for eviction of
the appellant since there was no order of
release in favour of respondent no. 1.

7. We have heard counsel for both
the parties and perused the record. Before
proceeding with the merit of the appeal, it
is necessary to consider the preliminary
objection raised by counsel for respondent
no. 1 regarding entertainability of the
appeal against the judgment of learned
single Judge in which undertaking was
given by the appellant to vacate the
premises within three months. Although
Sri Ravi Kant, counsel for appellant
submitted that undertaking which has
been filed by the appellant before the
District Magistrate on 25th October, 2002
is not an undertaking by the appellant on
his own volition but is an undertaking
under the direction of this Court and it
cannot be treated to be an undertaking,
but the fact remains that it was the
appellant who offered to vacate the
premises
provided
he
is
granted
reasonable time to vacate the building, in
view of the aforesaid facts, we are
proceeding on the premise that appellant
gave an undertaking to vacate the
premises
within
three
months
in
pursuance of the judgment dated 23rd
October, 2002.

8. The word 'undertaking' has been
defined in P. Ramanatha Aiyar, the Law
Lexicon (Second Edition) in following
words :

"Undertaking
is
a
promise,
engagement or stipulation. The term is
frequently used in the special sense of a
promise given in the court of legal
proceedings, by a party or his counsel,
generally as a condition of obtaining
some concession from the court on
opposite party."

9. The apex court in AIR 1979 SC
1528, Babu Ram Gupta vs. Sudhir
Bhasin and another considered as to
what
amounted
to
undertaking.
In
paragraph-7 of the judgment, the apex
Court laid down that a person appearing
before the Court can give an undertaking
in
two
ways.
Relevant
extract
of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Anand Mohan Sharma V. Niranjan Lal Gupta and others 773
paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment is
extracted below :

"7. Coming to the first point, the
contention of Mr. Asthana was that there
was no undertaking given by the appellant
to the court at all. Our attention has not
been drawn by counsel for the respondent
to any application or affidavit filed by the
appellant which contains on undertaking
given by the appellant to hand over
possession to the receiver appointed by
the High Court by virtue of the impugned
order. It is manifest that any person
appearing before the Court can give an
undertaking in two ways: (1) that he files
an application or an affidavit clearly
setting out the undertaking given by him
to Court, or (2) by a clear and express
oral undertaking given by the contemnor
and incorporated by the court in its
orders.........

10. The question to be considered is
as to whether a party who files an
undertaking before the Court is precluded
to challenge the judgment by way of
appeal. This question arose in an appeal
filed under Article 136 of the Constitution
before the apex court from judgement of
High Court in which tenant gave
undertaking to vacate within specified
time. Two Judge Bench of the apex Court
in 1995 Supp. (2) Supreme Court cases
539, Prashant Ramachandra Deshpande
vs. Maruti Balaram Haibatti vide order
dated 7th April, 1995 made a reference to
a Larger Bench in view of earlier two
decisions that such appeal cannot be filed
by tenant who has given undertaking to
vacate . In pursuance of the aforesaid
reference three Judges Bench of the Apex
Court decided the question in (1998) 6
SCC 507; P.R. Deshpande vs. Maruti
Balaram Haibatti. The apex Court laid
down in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the
judgment are quoted as below :-

"11. A party to a lis can be asked to
give an undertaking to the court if he
requires
stay
of
operation
of
the
judgment. It is done on the supposition
that the order would remain unchanged.
By directing the party to give such an
undertaking, no court can scuttle or
foreclose a statutory remedy of appeal or
revision, much less a constitutional
remedy. If the order is reserved or
modified by the superior court or even the
same court on a review, the undertaking
given by the party will automatically
cease to operate. Merely because a party
has complied with the directions to give
an undertaking as a condition for
obtaining stay, he cannot be presumed to
communicate to the other party that he is
thereby giving up his statutory remedies
to challenge the order. No doubt he is
bound to comply with his undertaking so
long as the order remains alive and
operative. However, it is open to such
superior court to consider whether the
operation of the order or judgement
challenged before it need be stayed or
suspended having regard to the fact that
the
party
concerned
has
given
undertaking in the lower court to abide by
the decree or order within the time fixed
by the Court.

12. We are, therefore, in agreement
with the view of Sahai and Venkatachala,
J.J., that the appeal filed under Article
136 of the Constitution by special leave
cannot be dismissed as not maintainable
on the mere ground that the appellant has
given an undertaking to the High Court
on being so directed , in order to keep the
High Court's order in abeyance for some
time.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
11. The judgment in Jagdish Lal's
case (supra) relied by the counsel for the
appellant do support the contention raised
by the appellant that he is not precluded to
file the present appeal merely on the
ground that he has given undertaking
before learned single Judge. In the
aforesaid judgement the apex court
following the three Judges judgment in
P.R. Deshpande's case (supra) has laid
down that tenant has right to approach
higher court despite the undertaking given
by him to vacate the premises. Paragraph
5 of the apex court judgment in Jagdish
Lal's case (supra) is extracted below :-

"5. The question was examined by
this Court in a subsequent decision in
P.R. Deshpande vs. Maruti Balaram
Haibatti in which it was laid down by a
Bench of three Judges of this Court that
even if the tenant gives an undertaking in
the High Court to vacate the premises, his
right to approach this Court under Article
136 of the Constitution is not affected.
The tenant would still have a right to
approach the higher court and even seek
interim relief of stay of eviction despite
the undertaking given by him to vacate
the premises. This decision, decisively
and clearly, has the effect to overruling
the earlier decision in Thacker Hariram
Motiram case as also two other decisions
in
Vidhi
Shanker
vs.
Chandanmal
Rupchand. The preliminary objection is
accordingly overruled."

12. In the aforesaid Jagdish Lal's
case (supra) Hon'ble D.P. Wadhwa, J.
while agreeing with the judgment of
Hon'ble S. Saghir Ahmad, J. emphasized
that in case tenant has given undertaking
in the High Court, the question before the
appellate Court would be that whether in
facts of case discretion be exercised by
the appellate Court to grant leave to
appeal. It was laid down in paragraph 23
of the aforesaid judgment which is
extracted below:

"23. There is no gainsaying that
jurisdiction of this Court under Article
136 of the Constitution cannot be
impugned upon. But then the Court has
absolute discretion in the matter to grant
leave to appeal to it under this article.
The judgment in P.R. Deshpande case in
my view, cannot be read as laying down
an universal rule that this Court in a
petition under article 136 cannot, while
exercising its discretion, examine the
circumstances under which undertaking
was given- as to whether the petitioner
has not misled the Court or duped the
other party. This Court cannot close its
eyes to a solemn undertaking given by a
party to the Court. Two things come to
mind. Take the case where order of
eviction has been passed against the
tenant. On the request of the tenant the
Court grants him time to approach the
higher court and meanwhile stays the
operation of the judgment on undertaking
given by the tenant. In the other case the
tenant requests the Court to grant him
time to vacate the premises, which could
be for a longer period than the period
prescribed for filing the appeal, the Court
grants time on the tenant giving the usual
undertaking. In the latter case it would be
a moot question if the Court will still
exercise its discretion in granting leave to
appeal
under
Article
136
of
the
Constitution."

13. From the aforesaid discussion, it
is clear that preliminary objection raised
by counsel for the respondents has no
substance and this Court cannot refuse to
entertain the appeal of the appellant on
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Anand Mohan Sharma V. Niranjan Lal Gupta and others 775
the ground that appellant has given
undertaking before the learned single
Judge to vacate the premises.

14. Now the submissions raised by
counsel for the appellant on merits of the
appeal need to be examined. From the
facts which have come on the record, it is
clear that in earlier Writ petition no. 3351
of 1991 filed by father of respondent no. 1
a joint affidavit was filed by respondent
no. 1 and other heirs of late Kundan Lal
and the appellant clearly stipulating that
appellant
is
ready
to
vacate
the
accommodation within a period of one
year from the date of final disposal of the
writ petition. The affidavit was filed in the
aforesaid writ petition by appellant in
which relevant statement was made in
paragraph 10 of the affidavit which has
been extracted by learned single Judge in
his judgement. On the basis of the
representation made by the appellant,
learned single Judge did not proceed to
decide the writ petition, learned single
Judge clearly noted in the order that writ
petition is dismissed in view of the fact
stated
in
the
application
filed
on
15.5.1995. Respondent no. 3 (appellant in
the
present
appeal)
also
filed
an
application for recall of the said order
dated

16th
August,
1996
which
application was rejected by the Court on
1st August, 2001. While rejecting the
application of respondent no. 3, this Court
noted the fact that order dated 16th
August, 1996 was passed on the basis of
facts stated in the application dated 15th
May, 1995 which was supported by an
affidavit of both the parties. Thus writ
petition no. 3351 of 1991 was decided on
the basis of averments made in the
affidavit of the parties and the application
dated 15.5.1995. As noted above, the apex
Court has laid down in Babu Ram
Gupta's case (supra) the manner in which
undertaking is to be given in a court. The
appellant unequivocally has stated in the
affidavit, in paragraph 10, that he will
vacate the premises within one year from
disposal of the writ petition. The said
affidavit filed by the appellant clearly
contained undertaking on his behalf. It is
to be noted that the order dated 16th
August, 1996 has become final as after
rejection of the application of respondent
no. 3 (appellant in the present appeal), the
matter was not further pursued by the
appellant. The Apex Court in P.R.
Deshpande's case (supra) has also laid
down that a party giving undertaking is
bound to comply with his undertaking so
long as the order remains alive and
operative. The appellant represented to
the Court, which was hearing writ petition
no. 3351 of 1991, that he will vacate the
premises within one year, hence the Court
did not proceed with the writ petition
further and the land lord also did not
pursue
the
writ
petition
on
the
undertaking by the tenant. The Apex
Court
in
(1976)
2
SCC
951,
Chhaganbhai
Norsinbhai
vs.
Soni
Chandubhai Gordhanbhai and others
while considering the question of breach
of undertaking has stated in paragraph 5
as under :

"5. Before parting with this case we
may refer to Halsbury's Laws of England-
Fourth Edn. Vol. 9 page 42 ( paragraph
71) where after citing Dashwood v.
Dashwood for the proposition that, when
a party fails to comply merely with the
terms of a consent order,
the remedy of the injured party is to
apply, not for committal, but for an order
for specific performance or an injunction,
and then to base proceedings for
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
contempt of any subsequent breach the
observation is made:
Where, however, there is an express
direction or undertaking in body of the
order, a breach will enable an immediate
application for committal to be made.
In the same volume, at page 44 (para
75) we find the law thus stated :
An undertaking given to the court by
a person or corporation in pending
proceedings, on the faith of which the
Court sanctions a particular course of
action or inaction, has the same force as
an injunction made by the court and a
breach of the undertaking is misconduct
amounting to contempt. '

15. Judgment of learned single
Judge dated 23rd October, 2002 is not
based merely on the undertaking which
was offered by the appellant at the time of
hearing to the Court but judgment is
based on; the affidavit filed by appellant
in writ petition no. 3351 of 1991 in which
the appellant had undertaken to vacate the
premises within one year from disposal of
the writ petition. Learned single Judge
while allowing the writ petition has held
that the appellant has given undertaking in
writ petition no. 3351 of 1991.

16. The submission of Sri Ravi Kant
that in paragraph 10 of the affidavit, as
mentioned above, no undertaking on
behalf of the appellant can be read since
the said undertaking was on the condition
that land lord will extend certain facilities
has no merit, Admittedly, respondent No.
3 (appellant in the present appeal) moved
application to recall the order dated 16th
August, 1996 making all such plea which
is sought to be raised in support of the
above submission and the said application
having been rejected by this Court on 1st
August, 2001, the said submission can
neither be canvassed any further nor can
be
accepted
by
this
Court.
From
paragraph 10 of the affidavit, as extracted
by learned single Judge in his judgment, it
is clear that there was unambiguous and
clear undertaking by the appellant to
vacate the premises and the above
submission cannot be accepted.

17. The second submission of Sri
Ravi Kant to the effect that District
Magistrate did not commit any error in
refusing to issue Form-D has to be
considered. As noted above, writ petition
no. 3351 of 1991 was dismissed in view
of the application dated 15.5.1995. As
observed above, in the aforesaid writ
petition there was clear undertaking by
appellant to vacate. Now the question is
as to whether learned single Judge can
enforce
the
undertaking
given
by
appellant in writ petition no. 3351 of 1991
while exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution is
wide enough to enable the High Court to
do complete justice. While considering
the extent of jurisdiction of the High
Court
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution, the apex court in JT 1992
(2) SC 65, M.V. Elisabeth and others vs.
Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd.
laid down in paragraph 102, relevant
portion of which is extracted as under :-

"102......Without entering into any
comparative study of jurisdiction of High
Court of England and the High Courts in
our country the one basic difference that
exists today is that the English courts
derive their creation, constitution and
jurisdiction
from
Administration
of
Justice Act or Supreme Court Act but the
High
Courts
in
our
country
are
established under the Constitution. Under
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Anand Mohan Sharma V. Niranjan Lal Gupta and others 777
it Article 225 preserved the jurisdiction,
which existed on the date of Constitution
came into force and Article 226 enlarged
it by making it not only a custodian of
fundamental rights of a citizen but as
repository of power to reach its arms to
do justice ...............
The High Courts in India being courts of
unlimited jurisdiction, repository of all
judicial power under the Constitution
except what is excluded are competent to
issue directions for arrest of foreign ship
in exercise of statutory jurisdiction or
even otherwise to effectuate the exercise
of jurisdiction............

18. The Delhi High Court in AIR
1980 Delhi 39, Saleemuddin and another
vs. Sharufuddin and others laid down in
paragraph 27 that the High Court has
jurisdiction to enforce an undertaking
given before it. Paragraph 27 of the said
judgment is extracted below:-
"27. Counsel for the land lord
submits that warrant of possession be also
issued as the undertaking was given to
this Court and this court ought to enforce
it. The Court is not powerless to deliver
possession to the land lords. The Court
has the power to enforce an undertaking.
It can be enforced by committal. It can be
enforced by execution. I, therefore accept
this prayer and order that a warrant of
possession be issued in respect of
premises No. 7687 Ward No. XVI, Gali
Takhat Wali, Qasabpura, Delhi. Police
aid be given to the land lords for
obtaining possession of the premises as
there has been resistance to the delivery
of possession in the past."

19. The Apex Court in AIR 1984 SC
1826, Mohammad Idris and another vs.
Rustam Jehangir Bapufi and others had
laid down that in case of breach of
undertaking given by a party, the High
Court was justified in giving appropriate
direction to close the breach in addition to
punishing the party for contempt of court.
The apex court in paragraph 4 of the
aforesaid judgement laid down as under :

"4. On merits, the learned counsel
submitted that the undertaking given was
not in respect of the property concerned
and that in any case the learned Single
Judge was not justified in giving certain
directions in addition to punishing the
petitioners for contempt of court. We find
no substance in the submissions made by
the learned counsel. There was a clear
breach of the undertaking given by the
petitioners and we are of the opinion that
the Single Judge was quite right in giving
appropriate
directions
to
close
the
breach. The Special Leave petition is,
therefore, dismissed."

20. From the aforesaid, it is clear
that
High
Court
while
exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution
can
issue
appropriate
directions for enforcing an undertaking
given by a party before it and learned
single Judge while allowing the writ
petition vide its judgment dated 23rd
October, 2002 has not committed any
error in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution. We do not
find any error in the judgement of learned
single Judge allowing the writ petition.
There is one more reason due to which
tenant is not entitled for any indulgence in
this appeal, i.e., according to undertaking
as given in the affidavit, the tenant was
liable to vacate the accommodation within
one year from the date of disposal of the
writ petition i.e. within one year from
16th August, 1996 i.e. by 15th August,
1997. Even after 15th August, 1997 more
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
than five years have elapsed and the land
lord has not been able to get possession.
This is an additional reason for not
exercising any discretion in favour of
tenant in writ jurisdiction.

21. Learned single Judge has rightly,
in the judgment, stated that District
Magistrate should have accepted the
recommendation of Rent Control and
Eviction officer for issuing Forms-C and
D. Learned single Judge has rightly
observed that the District Magistrate in
refusing
to
issue
Forms-C
and
D
committed error. Non issuance of Form-D
by District Magistrate vide his order dated
21st
May,
2002
has
become
inconsequential in view of the directions
issued by learned single Judge in its
impugned
judgment.
Learned
single
Judge has rightly issued a direction that in
case the appellant fails to vacate the
building in question or undertaking is not
given within the time, the Rent Control
and Eviction Officer/District Magistrate
shall evict the tenant in accordance with
law. We do no find any error in the
judgment of learned single Judge and the
submissions raised by counsel for the
appellant are without any substance.

22. This appeal lacks merit and is
dismissed without any order as to cost..
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE G.P. MATHUR, J.
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 378 of 2002

National Insurance Company Limited

 ...Opposite party/ Appellant
Versus
Brij Pal Singh and another

 ...Claimant/Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri A.K. Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.P. Singh Charak
Sri D.R. Choudhary
Sri R.P. Singh Tomar
Sri Abha Tomar
Sri Shubhra Pareshar

Motor Vehicles Act Section 173/174- it is
still more important to interpret the law
in a manner which has the effect of
preventing the accidents- If the owner is
held liable to pay compensation where
there is breach of specified condition of
policy, it may act as a deterrent and he
may also take effective measures to
prevent
accidents
by
having
a
mechanically sound vehicle which is not
over loaded and a duly licensed and
competent driver. (Held in para)

(Delivered by Hon'ble G.P. Mathur, A.C.J.)

This appeal under Section 17 of the
Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred
against the judgment and award dated
6.1.2002. of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal/Additional Judge, Court No. 19,
Meerut, by which the claim petition filed
by Brij Pal Singh (Respondent No. 1) was
allowed
and
the
appellant-Insurance