PRAKASH BHALOTIA (D) THR HIS LRS versus INDRA CHANDRA GOYAL (D) THRU. LRS
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 988, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 988 : 2024 INSC 941
Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs 
v. 
Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. LRs
(Civil Appeal No. 10855 of 2024)
25 September 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the eviction suit 
filed by the appellant-landlord and holding that the respondent-tenant 
was entitled to protection under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh 
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent 
and Eviction) Act, 1972 – ss.20(2)(a), 20(4), 30 – Protection 
u/s.20, when not available – Suit filed by the landlord if, to 
be decreed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent 
and tenant be evicted:
Held: Yes – Under s.20(2)(a), in case the tenant is in arrears of 
rent of four months, the suit for eviction after determination of his 
tenancy may lie, but such rent may be deposited within one month 
from the date of service of notice of default upon him – In case, 
the due rent along with damages and occupation charges is not 
paid as required u/s.20(2)(a) r/w ss.20(4) and 30, no protection 
would be available as stipulated u/s.20 – Tenancy was for a period 
of five years whereafter, it was extendable by consent of landlord 
with rent enhancement – No agreed lease agreement was entered 
after 30.06.1990, but as per the UP Rent Act, the tenancy would 
become statutory and subject to payment of the
enhanced rent, 
the suit can be maintained – But, in case of consecutive default of 
monthly payment of rent and continuous non-payment as specified 
under the UP Rent Act, it may be a ground to grant decree of 
eviction – Tenant was in default in regular payment of monthly rent, 
tax and interest due during pendency of the suit, revision before 
the High Court and also in appeal before this Court – On facts, 
the burden of payment or deposit of rent by tenant not discharged 
to shift onus on landlord – Deposit in one-go after the order of 
this Court would not absolve the tenant from consequence of 
non-payment or delayed payment of rent – Findings recorded by
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 
989
Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs v. Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. LRs
Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are perverse – Orders 
passed by Trial Court and the High Court set aside – Suit filed by 
the landlord decreed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of 
rent, tenant to be evicted from the suit subject property. [Paras 
13, 15, 22, 25-27]
Rent eviction matters – Revisional jurisdiction of High 
Court – Trial Court dismissed the eviction suit filed by the 
landlord – Revision thereagainst, dismissed by High Court 
holding that re-appraisal of evidence is not permissible in 
revisional jurisdiction:
Held: Once a revision petition is entertained by the High Court, it 
acquires the jurisdiction to call for and examine the records of the 
authority subordinate to it – Any illegality, irregularity or impropriety 
coming to its notice is capable of being corrected by it by passing 
such appropriate order or direction as the law requires and justice 
demands – Therefore, the High Court was required to look into 
the material placed and justifiability of the findings relying those 
documents – In absence of its satisfaction, the High Court ought 
to have interfered and such revision cannot be thrown out on the 
ground of limited scope of jurisdiction. [Para 24]
Case Law Cited
Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat 
[1970] 1 SCR 322 : (1969) 2 SCC 74; Babulal Nagar and Others 
v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. and Others [1984] 3 SCR 772
: (1984) 
Supp SCC 128; Nalakanth Sainuddin v. Koorkikadan Sulaiman 
[2002] Supp. 1 SCR 1 : (2002) 6 SCC 1 – relied on.
Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar and Ors. [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 1 : 
(1985) 2 SCC 683 – referred to.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
Eviction) Act, 1972.
List of Keywords
Eviction suit; Non-payment of arrears of rent; Delayed payment of 
rent; Decree of eviction; Determination of tenancy; Date of service of 
notice of default; Due rent; Damages, Occupation charges; Tenancy 
for five years extendable by consent of landlord; Lease agreement; 
Enhanced rent; Consecutive default of monthly payment of rent;
990
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Burden of payment/deposit of rentnot discharged; Continuous 
non-payment; Statutory tenancy; Default in regular payment of 
monthly rent, Tax, interest due; Pendency of suit, revision and 
appeal; Deposit in one-go; Findings perverse; Rent eviction matters; 
Revisional jurisdiction of High Court; Re-appraisal of evidence.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10855 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2013 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in CR No. 175 of 2001
Appearances for Parties
Amitabh Chaturvedi, Rahul Shukla, Mrs. Bachita Baruah Shukla, 
Barbeshwar Bhalotia, Kumar Dushyant Singh, Advs. for the 
Appellants.
Ms. Aarohi Bhalla, Anupam Mishra, Harikumar V., Advs. for the 
Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
Challenging the judgment dated 22.01.2001 passed in Suit No. 1 of 
1992 by Small Causes Court dismissing the suit for eviction filed by 
landlord due to ‘non-payment of rent’, ‘subletting’, and ‘expiry of rent 
agreement’, as affirmed by the High Court vide impugned judgment 
dated 31.01.2013, the present appeal has been filed. 
3.	
The facts leading are that appellant (now deceased) was the owner 
of Shop No. 4 (Western Direction) situated in Mohalla Begupur, 
Muglani, Ram Prasad Bhalotia Market, District Gorakhpur city 
with the prescribed boundaries shown in the suit. The defendant/
respondent (now deceased) was inducted
as a tenant on a monthly 
rent of ₹ 330/-. The tenancy was for a fixed period of five years, 
which started from 01.07.1985 and ended on 30.06.1990. As per 
the terms of tenancy, on expiry of period of five years, the tenant 
may continue with increase of rent @ 15 % per month provided the 
same is agreeable to the owner. 
4.	
It was averred in the suit that neither plaintiff – landlord intimated
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 
991
Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs v. Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. LRs
about construction of shop to Municipality nor Municipality recorded 
the same on its own and did the tax assessment of the shop in 
1972. On objections being raised by plaintiff/landlord, the same was 
admitted by the Municipality. The plea of sub-letting has also been 
averred, but it is not being dealt here as the said ground has not 
been pressed during hearing. As contended, after expiry of the period 
of tenancy, it was not renewed by consent and the respondent – 
tenant became unauthorized occupant of the shop. However, as per 
agreement, for the period of overstay, he ought to pay ₹ 1,000/- per 
month. Therefore, due to non-payment of rent, notice was issued for 
termination of tenancy, which was not responded to by defendant/
respondent – tenant. 
5.	
On filing suit, defendant entered appearance and filed the written 
statement, inter-alia, stating that plaintiff did not have right to bring 
the suit, and claimed protection under Section 20 of The Uttar 
Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “UP Rent Act”). It was averred 
that, prior to the fresh tenancy agreement dated 13.03.1986, which 
was from 01.07.1985 for five years, defendant was a tenant since 
1977, therefore, being in continuous tenancy, the same would not 
extinguish and he would be entitled to protection available under 
Section 20 of the UP
Rent Act, if rent is deposited in the Court under 
Section 30 of the said Act. 
6.	
Learned Trial Court, on Issue No. 4 noted that from the agreement 
it can be determined that the tenancy was not for a definite period 
of five years. On Issue No. 5 it was held that the benefit under 
Section 20(4) of the UP Rent Act is available to the tenant. Further, 
Issue No. 6 which relates to default in payment of the rent, it was 
concluded against the landlord and in favour of tenant and hence, 
suit was dismissed.
7.	
The revision filed against the judgment of the Trial Court was 
dismissed by the High Court, observing that in revisional jurisdiction, 
re-appraisal of evidence is not permissible, and consequently findings 
of the Trial Court were affirmed. 
8.	
Being dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred, inter-alia, 
submitting that tenancy was for 5 years, and ended on 30.06.1990. 
The tenancy was monthly in nature and the rent was payable on 
month-to-month basis. As per Clause 14, such tenancy may be 
extendable, by consent of the landlord with monthly increase of
992
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
rent @ 15%, after entering into registered agreement. In absence 
thereof, Clause 6 of the agreement would attract and the defendant 
be treated an unauthorized occupant and liable to pay ₹ 1000/- per 
month as penalty for overstay.
9.	
It is contended that the rent and the penalty, as agreed in the lease 
agreement, has not been deposited even on receipt of the notice 
by the Court within the time and the respondent – tenant was in 
default of payment of rent even during pendency of proceedings. 
This Court vide order dated 18.09.2018 directed the respondent-
tenant(s) to file affidavit giving details of the rent deposited within a 
week. Thereafter, four weeks’ time was granted to deposit arrears of 
rent and taxes etc. Later, one more opportunity of four weeks was 
granted to comply the said orders. In compliance, the respondent – 
tenant filed an affidavit and explained that the rent as agreed above 
after expiry of the period of tenancy has been deposited, including 
House Tax as detailed therein. 
10.	 The contention of appellant – landlord is that the findings of Trial 
Court on Issue No. 6 is vague and referring to the documents, he 
submitted that respondent – tenant is in default in depositing month to 
month rent as per UP Rent Act. Therefore, the findings are completely 
perverse and contrary to the record placed before this Court. 
11.	 Per contra, learned counsel for the tenant – respondent(s) has taken 
us
through the findings of the Trial Court on Issue Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and 
submitted that in absence of any material controverting those findings, 
re-appraisal in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution 
of India ought not to be done. It is contended that the affidavit filed is 
only regarding arrears of rent and taxes during pendency, therefore, 
it cannot form basis to set aside the findings of the Trial Court which 
dismissed the suit seeking eviction. Learned counsel further made an 
attempt while referring various documents filed subsequently stating 
that, the rent which was due has already been deposited. 
12.	 During hearing, it was not disputed by learned counsel for the parties 
that the provisions of the UP Rent Act are applicable to the suit filed 
by the appellant – landlord for eviction. Therefore, we are inclined 
to appreciate the findings recorded on this issue by the Trial Court 
as affirmed by the High Court. 
13.	 In the UP Rent Act, ‘tenant’ has been defined in Section 3(a) as “a 
person by whom its rent is payable, till his death.” Further Section 
7 deals with ‘Liability to pay taxes’ which specifies ‘subject to any
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 
993
Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs v. Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. LRs
contract in writing to the contrary, but notwithstanding the provisions 
of Section 149 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, the 
tenant shall be liable to pay to the landlord the taxes i.e. water tax, 
house tax, in addition to the part of the rent.’ Section 20 of the UP 
Rent Act, in Chapter-IV, stipulates about bar of suit for eviction of 
tenant except on specified grounds and provides protection to the 
tenant as specified. Section 20(2)(a) of the UP Rent Act makes it 
clear that a suit for eviction of a tenant after determination of his 
tenancy may be instituted on the ground, where the tenant is in 
arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay 
to the landlord within one month from the date of service of notice 
of default upon him. Section 20(4) makes it clear that in a suit for 
eviction for non-payment of rent, at the first hearing of the suit, if the 
tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in 
Court the entire amount of rent including the damages for use and 
occupation of the building due from him together with interest @ 
9% per annum along with landlord’s cost of the suit, after deducting 
any amount already deposited by him under Section 30(1), on such 
deposit, the Court may pass an order relieving the tenant against 
his liability for eviction. Meaning thereby, it is clear that in case the 
tenant is in
arrears of four months, the suit may lie, but such rent 
may be deposited within one month from the date of service on him. 
In case, the due rent along with damages and occupation charges 
is not paid as required under Section 20(2)(a) of the UP Rent Act 
read with Sections 20(4) and 30 of the Act, no protection would be 
available as stipulated under Section 20 of the said Act. 
14.	 In case the landlord refuses to accept the rent, which is required to 
be paid by the tenant, then such amount can be deposited in the 
manner prescribed under Section 30 of UP Rent Act and the tenant 
can continue to deposit rent due even for any subsequent period until 
the landlord signifies by notice to accept the same by his willingness. 
Therefore, it can safely be said that in addition to cause of action 
to file a suit for arrears of due rent of not less than four months, if 
the rent is not deposited regularly, including the damages and the 
occupational charges along with the interest @ 9%, the suit seeking 
eviction can be maintained and decreed. 
15.	 As already noted, the ground of sub-letting has not been pressed 
and during hearing, learned counsel for the appellant(s) – landlord 
has pressed this appeal only for non-payment of rent, therefore, 
we are appreciating the said issue only. In this regard, if we peruse
994
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the findings of the Trial Court on Issue Nos. 5 and 6, then it clearly 
indicates that such findings are relying upon Exhibits K1 to K6 – 
receipt of the rents and Exhibits K7 to K12 – receipts of sending the 
Money Orders and Exhibits K13 and K14, which relate to deposit of 
the money in the Court of Munsiff, Gorakhpur. Those documents, 
i.e., Exhibits K1 to K6 have not been produced, but placed before 
us. On perusal, it is clear that those are receipts of rent for the 
years 1984, 1988, 1989 and K6 is receipt of 31.03.1990 depositing 
consolidated rent of ₹3460/-, which is from April 1989 to March, 1990. 
Thus, except receipt K6, no other receipt relates to the demand of 
rent by notice in the suit. From the document Exhibits K7 to K12, 
it is not clear that these Money Orders were of which period of 
rent. Similar is the position with document Exhibits K13 and K14. 
Therefore, those documents are not sufficient to discharge burden of 
payment or deposit of rent by respondent – tenant and to shift onus 
on appellant – landlord. Similarly on filing the suit on 06.02.1992, 
whether the rent was regularly paid by the respondent – tenant as 
contemplated under Section 20(4) including Section 30(1) of the UP 
Rent Act has not been considered. 
16.	 By the proceeding dated 18.09.2018 of the case, this Court directed 
the respondent – tenant to file an affidavit giving details of the payment 
of the rent. Later, directions were
issued to deposit the arrears of 
rent and taxes after filing of eviction petition. Due to non-compliance, 
in a later proceeding, four weeks’ further time to comply with the 
previous orders was allowed. In response, an affidavit was filed by 
respondent – tenant, wherein paragraph 3, details of deposit have 
been disclosed. Those details are relevant and reproduced as thus: -
“3. That I have deposited the rent for the shop room in 
the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gorakhpur 
through the Sub-Treasury in Misc. Rent Case No. 71 of 
2001 as shown below :-
Date of 
Deposit
Period for which Rent was 
Remitted
Amount 
Deposited
28.09.2012
October 2011 to September 2012
Rs. 4554
21.03.2013
October 2012 to September 2013
Rs. 4554
19.10.2013
October 2013 to March 2014
Rs. 2277
19.04.2014
April 2014 to September 2014
Rs. 2277
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 
995
Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs v. Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. LRs
02.02.2015
October 2014 to September 2015
Rs. 4554
02.11.2015
October 2015 to September 2016
Rs. 4554
01.12.2016
October 2016 to September 2017
Rs. 4554
07.11.2017
October 2017 to September 2018
Rs. 4554”
17.	 The respondent – tenant also filed an application (I.A. No. 61800 
of 2020) seeking permission to bring additional documents on 
record. The documents annexed as R1 and R3 are the receipts 
of deposit of the rent from January 2019 to December 2019 and 
January 2020 to December 2020 in the case of Yashoda Devi and 
not related to this case. Document annexed as R2 relates to this 
case, whereby the respondent – tenant deposited the rent from 
October 2019 to March 2020 and Annexure R4 is the House Tax 
Receipt of ₹50,049/- deposited in compliance of the order of this 
Court. 
18.	 In this respect, appellant – landlord has also filed a document 
along with I.A. No. 11110 of 2020 indicating deficit rent of ₹28462.6 
and Tax of ₹1912.68 @ 24% for a period of 75 months viz. from 
July 1995 to December 1995, January 1996 to December 1996, 
January 1997 to March 1997, April 2002 to March 2003, April 
2003 to March 2004, October 2006 to September 2007, October 
2008 to March 2009 and October 2009 to September 2010. In 
the said document, it is also specified that from October, 2001 to 
September, 2019, i.e., a total 216 months, the Tax has not been 
deposited, which comes to ₹19,673.28
and there is a total deficit 
of ₹50048.56. 
19.	 On perusal of the affidavit and the documents referred hereinabove, it 
can safely be concluded that the rent from October 2011 to September 
2012 was paid on 28.09.2012, hence, month to month rent was 
not paid during this period, and the default of respondent – tenant 
was there. Similarly, from October 2012 to September 2013, the 
rent was deposited on 21.03.2013, thus, default in payment of rent 
for October 2012 to March 2013 is clear. The rent from April 2014 
to September 2014 was paid on 19.04.2014. It shows default of 
payment of rent for the month of April which was paid after 10th day 
of month. Similar is the position from October, 2015 to September, 
2016 and October, 2016 to September, 2017. In those cases, there
996
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
was a default of payment of rent for the months of October 2015 
and November 2016. 
20.	 If we peruse the payment of rent from October 2014 to September 
2015, deposited on 02.02.2015, again there was a default for October 
2014 to January 2015. Therefore, from the averments of the affidavit 
of the tenant, defaults in deposit of rent are clearly luculent, which 
cannot be ignored. 
21.	 By the documents Annexures R2 and R4 also, default of continuous 
payment of rent during pendency either before the Trial Court or 
before the High Court or before this Court has not been rectified. 
During hearing, nothing has been brought on record by the 
respondent – tenant to substantiate that in compliance to the 
provisions of Section 20(4) and Section 30(1) of the UP Rent Act, 
regular rent from the date of receipt of notice of the suit has been 
deposited. Reference of some documents have been made by 
learned Trial Court, by which it is not clear that the rent deposited 
by the tenant was within the period of one month from the date 
of receipt of notice and the rent was paid regularly thereafter. In 
addition, it is not clear that in case of default, 9% interest has been 
paid. Simultaneously, deposit in one-go after the order of this Court 
would not absolve the tenant from consequence of non-payment 
or delayed payment of rent. 
22.	 As per the discussion made hereinabove, we are constrained to hold 
that the tenant has not
paid rent regularly during the pendency of 
the suit, revision and appeal, and was in default in payment of rent, 
tax and interest due. In a suit seeking eviction on the ground of 
arrears of rent, if the rent is not paid during the pendency, it can be 
a ground for directing eviction for non-payment of the rent. Therefore, 
the findings of the Trial Court, dismissing the suit seeking eviction, 
affirmed by the High Court without any appraisal of the material, do 
not appear to be justified. 
23.	 Learned counsel for the appellant – landlord has placed reliance 
on a Constitution Bench decision in case of “Gian Devi Anand Vs. 
Jeevan Kumar and Ors.” (1985) 2 SCC 683, whereby in a Rent 
Control and eviction matter, this Court has specified the nature of 
the statutory tenancy and its concept. It was thereby held that the 
distinction between the contractual tenancy and the statutory tenancy 
is obliterated by Rent Control Legislation because the contractual 
tenancy would be converted into statutory tenancy. There cannot be
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 
997
Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs v. Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. LRs
any doubt in this regard, particularly in the facts of the case whereby 
the tenancy of the appellant, though contractual for a limited period, 
but continued by virtue of applicability of the provisions of UP Rent 
Act as accepted by the parties. 
24.	 Underlying the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in rent eviction 
matters, this Court in “Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar Versus 
Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat” (1969) 2 SCC 74, observed that 
revisional jurisdiction partakes the appellate jurisdiction of a superior 
Court. The right of appeal is one of entering a superior Court and 
invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the Court 
below. When the aid of High Court is invoked on the revisional side, 
it is done because it is a superior Court and it can interfere for the 
purpose of rectifying the error of the Court below. Further, in the 
case of “Babulal Nagar and others Versus Shree Synthetics 
Ltd. and others” (1984) Supp SCC 128, it was observed that 
jurisdiction to examine the propriety of the order or decision carries 
with it the same jurisdiction as the original authority to come to a 
different conclusion on the said set of facts. If any other view is taken, 
the expression “propriety” would lose its significance. Lastly, in the 
case of “Nalakanth Sainuddin versus Koorkikadan Sulaiman” 
(2002) 6 SCC 1, this Court observed that once a revision petition
is 
entertained by the High Court, whichever be the party invoking the 
revisional jurisdiction, it acquires jurisdiction to call for and examine 
the records of the authority subordinate to it. Any illegality, irregularity 
or impropriety coming to its notice is capable of being corrected by 
it by passing such appropriate order or direction as the law requires 
and justice demands. 
Therefore, we are of the view that in the revision in the eviction 
matter, the High Court was required to look into the material placed 
and justifiability of the findings relying those documents. In absence 
of its satisfaction, interference ought to be have been made by the 
High Court and such revision cannot be thrown out on the ground 
of limited scope of jurisdiction. 
25.	 Coming to the case in hand, the agreement of tenancy has been 
admitted with effect from 01.07.1985, on month-to-month basis and 
rent had to be paid against receipt. The said tenancy was for a period 
of five years. Clause 14 depicts that on expiry of five-year, it may 
be extendable by consent of landlord with enhancement @ 15% 
rent per month (claimed to be per annum). Indeed, it is true that no 
agreed lease agreement was entered into after 30.06.1990, but as
998
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
per the provisions of the UP Rent Act, the tenancy would become 
statutory and subject to payment of the enhanced rent, the suit can 
be maintained. But, in case of consecutive default of monthly payment 
of rent and continuous non-payment as specified under the UP Rent 
Act, it may be a ground to grant decree of eviction. 
26.	 In view of our foregoing discussions, it can safely be concluded that 
the respondent – tenant was in default in regular payment of monthly 
rent during pendency of the suit, revision before the High Court and 
also before this Court. He has deposited the amount deficit towards 
rent payment and house tax totaling to ₹50,048.56/- after the direction 
of this Court in one-go as specified above. The findings recorded 
by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are completely 
perverse and without appreciating the real intent of provisions of 
Sections 20 and 30 of UP Rent Act, therefore, liable to be set-aside. 
27.	 Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set-aside the orders passed 
by the Trial Court and the High Court and decree the suit filed by 
the appellant – landlord on the ground of non-payment of arrears of 
rent and direct eviction from the suit subject property. 
28.	 In the facts and circumstances of the case, as prayed by 
respondent(s) – tenant(s) we grant time up to 31.03.2025 to vacate 
the suit premises subject to payment of due rent and arrears thereof, 
after adjusting the
amount of rent already deposited, within one month 
and continue to pay regular monthly rent for the permissible period 
of occupation. They shall hand over the vacant possession of the 
suit premises to the appellants on or before 31.03.2025 and shall 
not part with or create third party right therein. The respondents – 
tenants shall file usual undertaking on affidavit in this regard within a 
period of nine weeks from today before the Registrar, High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad. The violation of the aforesaid terms would 
be treated as non-compliance of the order of this Court. Pending 
interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey