Kalawati (Smt.) Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge and ors.

Kalawati (Smt.) vs ivth Additional District Judge and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Jul 20, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/491591

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/491591
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Anjani Kumar, J.
Decided On: Jul 20, 2004
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 17377 of 1986
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 14 and 18; Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kalawati (Smt.)

Advocate R.N. Bhalla, Adv.

Respondent

ivth Additional District Judge and ors.

Advocate S.M. Dayal, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 14 and 18; Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976
Reported In: 2005(1)ARC185

Excerpt

.....for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - the revisional court interfered with the order passed by the rent control and eviction officer on two grounds--firstly, the transfer certificate issued in favour of the brother of the contesting respondent from a college at kanpur clearly demonstrates that the brother was residing in the accommodation in question and secondly, in any view of the matter on coming into force of u......to the records and secondly, in view of the phraseology of section 18 of the revisional court has acted with material irregularity in interfering with the order passed by the rent control and eviction officer. sri bhalla further submitted that merely because transfer certificate refers to the address of the premises in question as respondent is the brother of the tenant, even assuming him to be a tenant, does not and possibly cannot be possessed when admittedly the contesting respondent has been transferred from kanpur to izat nagar, bareilly.3. with regard to regularization of the accommodation there is no finding by the revisional court nor revisional court has upset the finding recorded by the rent control and eviction officer that in fact there is no consent, even assuming, that contesting respondent was still living in the accommodation in question so as to give him a right for regularization under section 14 of the act no. xiii of 1972 as amended by u.p. act no. xxiv of 1976. sri s.m. dayal could not rebut this argument.4. the order passed by the revisional court deserves to be quashed and hereby quashed. the matter may again be decided by the revisional court in the light of the observation made in this judgment and also in accordance with law.5. since the matter is fairly old the revisional court is directed to decide the matter within the period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.6. the writ petition is allowed.

Full Judgment

Anjani Kumar, J.

1. This is landlady's writ petition against the order passed by the Revisional Court under the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer's order has been set aside whereby he declared vacancy of the accommodation in question and released the same in favour of the landlady. The Revisional Court interfered with the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on two grounds--firstly, the transfer certificate issued in favour of the brother of the contesting respondent from a college at kanpur clearly demonstrates that the brother was residing in the accommodation in question and secondly, in any view of the matter on coming into force of U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1976 the occupation of contesting respondent stands regularised.

2. Sri R.N. Bhalla, learned appearing for the petitioner states that both these views taken by the Revisional Court suffer from manifest error inasmuch as the same is firstly perverse and contrary to the records and secondly, in view of the phraseology of Section 18 of the Revisional Court has acted with material irregularity in interfering with the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Sri Bhalla further submitted that merely because transfer certificate refers to the address of the premises in question as respondent is the brother of the tenant, even assuming him to be a tenant, does not and possibly cannot be possessed when admittedly the contesting respondent has been transferred from Kanpur to Izat Nagar, Bareilly.

3. With regard to regularization of the accommodation there is no finding by the Revisional Court nor Revisional Court has upset the finding recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that in fact there is no consent, even assuming, that contesting respondent was still living in the accommodation in question so as to give him a right for regularization under Section 14 of the Act No. XIII of 1972 as amended by U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1976. Sri S.M. Dayal could not rebut this argument.

4. The order passed by the Revisional Court deserves to be quashed and hereby quashed. The matter may again be decided by the Revisional Court in the light of the observation made in this judgment and also in accordance with law.

5. Since the matter is fairly old the Revisional Court is directed to decide the matter within the period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

6. The writ petition is allowed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2004 Same Parties Kalawati (Smt.) vs ivth Additional District Judge and ors. Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Anjani Kumar, J. Acts & Sections Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent an...

Tenancy