SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- V.N. Khare and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2618-2625 of 2000 @ (S. L. P. (C) Nos. 24568 of 1996 AND 3810, 3957, 4106, 4375, 4459, 4489 and 5440 of 1997). D/d. 13.4.2000.

Gulshan Rai - Appellant

Versus

Pushpa Devi and others - Respondents

Constitution of India, Article 133 - Appeal - Lease - Suit praying direction to defendant to execute lease deed in favour of plaintiff, decreed - Appeal filed by defendant before High Court held to be infructuous as lease deed executed by defendant canceled by State Government - Challenged before supreme court - Plaintiff filed writ petition before High court against cancellation of lease deed, allowed and letter patent appeal field by defendant pending - Both the parties agreed that matter be sent back to High court to decide second appeal after decision of Letters Patent Appeal.

[Paras 5 and 6]

JUDGMENT

V.N. Khare, J. - Delay condoned.

2. Substitution applications allowed.

3. Exemption applications allowed.

4. Leave granted.

5. Since the facts and law involved in all these appeals are common. We, therefore, propose to decide these appeals by a common judgment. The appellant herein filed a suit praying therein for directions to the defendants/respondents to execute lease deed in their favour. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, directing the defendants to execute lease deed, as per orders passed by the State of Haryana subject to the conditions of leaving specified space in front of shop of one Devi Dayal. The Appellate Court upheld the said decree with slight modification. The defendant/respondents thereafter preferred ten Regular Second Appeals before the High Court. Cross objections were also filed. When the Regular Second Appeals came up for hearing it was found that the lease deed executed in favour of the appellants was cancelled by the State Government. Consequently, the High Court was of the view that the appeals are rendered infructuous. It is against the said judgment the plaintiff-appellants are in appeal before this Court. It is stated at the bar that against the cancellation of lease deed the plaintiff-appellants had filed writ petitions before the High Court which were allowed and the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the defendant-respondents are pending before the Letters Patent Bench.

6. Learned counsel for the parties jointly stated that in view of the fact that Letters Patent Appeals are pending, these matters may be sent back to the High Court to be decided after the decision which may be rendered in the Letters Patent Appeals. In view of the agreed statement of the parties, we set aside the judgments under appeal and send these matters back to the High Court to be decided after the decision in LPA No. 187/91 arising out of the High Court W.P. No. 8299/88 decided on 19th November, 1990. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order accordingly.