# Rajendra Kumar Karanwal v. Smt. Kamlesh Garg and others - **Citation:** (2005) 4 ILRA 1202 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2005-07-01 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45102 of 2003 - **Bench:** Anjani Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-kumar-karanwal-v-smt-kamlesh-garg-and-others-40602 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text 1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005 of 1993 is set aside to the extent of acquittal of the three accused by means of the common order. I am conscious of the fact that the three accused namely Lavlesh, Dafola and Mohan have not been arrayed as a party as such I direct the learned Sessions Judge to issue notice to the three accused to face the trial but they may not be taken into custody as they were already on bail at the time when the relevant order was passed on 15.4.1999. Since the sureties were discharged, they will only be required to furnish fresh bonds. 5. Learned Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot is further directed to complete the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the District Judge Chitrakoot for compliance of this order so that Session Trial No. 33 of 1993 be completed within the stipulated period. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of and the case is remanded for afresh trial in accordance with the directions given hereinabove. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2005 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45102 of 2003 Rajendra Kumar Karanwal ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Kamlesh Garg and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Some Narayan Mishra Km. Rama Goel Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma Sri Namit Sharma U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972Section 30 (1)-Scope of Revision-Order permitting the petitioner-tenant to deposit the rent in court-in case of refusal to accept the rent by the land lord-District Judge by impugned judgment-exercised its power of revision and set-aside the order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)-held-in view of decision of Anwar Ali's case-Revisional Court acted beyond jurisdiction-No appeal or Revision maintainable against the order passed by Munsif under Section 30 (1) of the Act. Held: Para 4 In view of the provisions of Section 30 (1) and in view of the decision of Anwar Ali (supra), in my opinion, the revisional court has acted beyond jurisdiction in entertaining the revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. Case law discussed: 2002 (2) ARC-562 relied on. 1964 ALJ-256 (Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.) 1. The petitioner-tenant has challenged the order dated 24.3.2003 passed by the Special/Additional District Judge, Saharanpur in Civil Revision No. 11 of 1997 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition). 2. Smt. Pamod Kumari and two minor children filed an application under Section 30 (1) of the Act in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Saharanpur 4 All] Rajendra Kumar Karanwal V. Smt. Kamlesh Garg and others 1203 for depositing rent of the premises under their tenancy. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 14 of 1989. The respondent-landlord filed an objection to the aforesaid application filed by dated 22.11.1996 held that there is relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties and directed the tenant to handover the amount of rent to the landlord and directed the landlord to give the receipt of the same and further observed that if the landlords refuse to accept the rent, the tenant will deposit the same in the court. The respondentlandlord aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred a revision being Civil Revision No. 11 of 1997 in the court of District Judge under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure who vide its order dated 24.3.2003 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Civil Judge and rejected the application filed by the tenant under Section 30 (1). Thus, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 no revision or appeal lies before any authority or court against the order passed by the Civil Court under Section 30 (1) U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Thus, the revision was not maintainable and the order of the revisional court entertaining the revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petition relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 2002 (2) ARC 562; Anwar Ali Versus Additional District Judge, Moradabad and others wherein this Court has held that no appeal or revision lay against the order passed by the Munsif under Section 30 (1) of decision this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order of the revisional court deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the full Bench decision of this court reported in 1964 All. L.J. 256; Chatur Mohan and others Versus Ram Behari Dixit. The Full Bench decision relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent is under the provisions of the old Act and there is no pari material provision under old Act like section 30 (1). In view of the provisions of Section 30 (1) and in view of the decision of Anwar Ali (supra), in my opinion, the revisional court has acted beyond jurisdiction in entertaining the revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. 5. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The order of the revisional court dated 24.3.2003 is quashed. The parties shall bear their respective costs. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2005 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J. Criminal Misc. Application No. 9693 of 2005 Rajiv Agrawal ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. ...Respondents Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Vinod Prasad Counsel for the Respondent: A.G.A.