Allahabad High Court
SHIV NARAYAN JAISWAL DEAD AND 2 OTHERSversusDINESH KUMAR JAISWAL AND 15 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The High Court modified the impugned order, directing that the respondent not be dispossessed except in accordance with due process and maintaining the status‑quo.
Summary
The dispute concerned a landlord‑tenant relationship where the tenant (respondent No. 1) sought a permanent injunction to stop the owners (appellants) from obstructing access to a medical store and charitable hospital and from taking possession of the premises. The tenant also asserted an adverse‑possession claim, although the suit was framed only for injunction. The High Court observed that landlord‑tenant matters are within the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, where a related suit is already pending. Accordingly, it modified the Additional Civil Judge’s order, directing that the tenant not be dispossessed except in accordance with due process and that the status‑quo be maintained. The FAFO was disposed and the record was ordered to be returned to the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should modify the order of the Additional Civil Judge concerning dispossession and status‑quo in a landlord‑tenant dispute.
- Whether the landlord‑tenant dispute falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes.
- Whether an adverse‑possession claim can be entertained alongside a suit for permanent injunction.
- Whether dispossession can be ordered without due process of law.
Subjects
- landlord‑tenant dispute
- permanent injunction
- adverse possession
- status quo
- civil procedure
- jurisdiction
- due process of law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 514 of 2025
Shiv Narayan Jaiswal Dead And 2 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal And 15 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Manoj Kumar, Saurabh Raj Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Nitin Agarwal
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and learned counsel
for the respondents/plaintiffs. Perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the parties admit that a dispute exists between the
landlord and tenant. The appellants/defendants are the owners, and
respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 is the tenant.
3. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that Original Suit No. 34 of 2022
was filed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 seeking a decree of permanent
injunction, whereby the defendants, along with their agents and colluding
associates, be restrained from obstructing the access route situated to the
west of the plaintiff's Shyam Charitable Hospital, and from forcibly
dispossessing the plaintiff of, or taking forcible possession of, the plaintiff's
medical store (Jaiswal Medical Store) and hospital (Shyam Charitable
Hospital).
4. It is further evident that the respondents/plaintiffs are also claiming
adverse possession over the property in question, whereas the suit as
instituted is for permanent injunction only.
5. SCC Suit No. 4 of 2022 between the parties is also pending before the
learned Additional District Judge (POCSO-III), Allahabad.
6. In matters relating to landlord-tenant disputes, the appropriate forum is the
Court of Small Causes (JCC Court), and the aforesaid SCC Suit is already
pending before the competent court of law. However, Application 6-G filed
by respondent no. 1 has been allowed, and the parties have been directed to
maintain status quo with respect to the disputed property, namely Arazi No.
1041, area 0.1890 hectare, situated at Mauza Koraon, Tehsil Koraon, District
Prayagraj, particularly the portion comprising the medical store "Jaiswal
Medical Store" and hospital "Shyam Charitable Hospital," constructed over
an area measuring 15 × 100 feet, with a further direction that no alteration
shall be made therein, vide order dated 15.01.2025.
FAFO No. 514 of 2025
2
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that
respondent no. 1 shall not be dispossessed except in accordance with due
process of law.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 14, Prayagraj is modified
to the extent indicated above.
9. The present FAFO is disposed of accordingly.
10. Let the original record be returned to the learned Trial Court forthwith.
May 6, 2026
M. Tarik
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…