Allahabad Court September 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Sushila and Others Vs. Ivth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC644
J.C. Gupta, J.1. This writ petition by the tenant is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.2.1992 of the revisional court, respondent No. 1. whereby the judgment of the trial court has been reversed and the plaintiffs suit for recovery of rent and ejectment has been decreed against the petitioner.2. The facts relevant in brief are that respondent No. 2 is the landlord of the disputed premises and late Ganga Charan Bari. the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was the tenant at the rate of Rs. 100 per month. It is not disputed that rent upto 30.9.1982 was paid by late Ganga Charan Bari to the plaintiff on different dates. As per the plaint allegations thereafter no rent was paid by Ganga Charan Bari and rent became due from 1.10.1982. The plaintiff demanded the arrears of rent from late Ganga Charan by serving a notice on him on 25.6.1985. By the same notice the tenancy was also determined. Since the notice did not evoke any response, the landlord respondent filed suit...
Ram Saran Tiwary Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC708
R. H. Zaidi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learnedstanding counsel and also perused the record.2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for Issuance of a writ, order or direction In the, nature of certiorari quashing the notice/order of retirement dated 14.2.1997, whereby the petitioner was sought to be retired with effect from 31.7.1997 on attaining the age of 58 years.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the petitioner was a member of Lower Subordinate Forest Service (Group-D post). He, therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, as amended up to date, cannot be retired before he attains the age of 60 years. It was urged that the petitioner before he attained the age of 60 years, was sought to be retired illegally on attaining the age of 58 years by means of impugned notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice was, therefore...
State of U.P. Through Collector, Dehradun and Another Vs. District Jud ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC43
J.C. Gupta, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 7.6.1996 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun, respondent No. 1 allowing Rent Appeal No. 93 of 1995 in part which was preferred by the landlord against the order dated 27.7.1994 made by the Additional District Magistrate under the delegated powers of the District Magistrate.2. It is not disputed that the petitioners are tenant in the accommodation in question of which respondent No. 2 is the landlord. It is also not disputed that the petitioners were paying rent at the rate of Rs. 1,654 per month. The landlord moved an application under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for enhancement of rent. The reports of valuer from both the sides were filed before the Addl. District Magistrate. The said authority, however, rejected the landlord's application mainly on the ground that since rent had already been determined earlier in the y...
Shiv Nath Vs. Addl. District Judge, Maharajganj and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC83
J.C. Gupta, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.11.1996 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Courts, respondent No. 2 whereby the application moved on behalf of the petitioner under Section 23 of the Small Causes Court Act to return the plaint for presentation before appropriate Court has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 6.10.1997 passed by the revisional court whereby the revision preferred against the order of the trial court has been dismissed.2. The suit for rent and ejectment filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 against respondent Nos. 7 to 13 and the petition is pending in the Court of Judge Small Causes. As per the plaint allegation, one Gabbu Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 7 to 13 was tenant in the accommodation In question at the rate of Rs. 25.25p. The accommodation was previously owned by Ganesh Sugar Mills, Anand Nagar, district Gorakhpur (now district Maharajganj) and...
Rampal Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Saharanpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC188
S.R. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner, who is elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Chauri Mandi, district Saharanpur, is aggrieved by the office order dated 10.7.1998 issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saharanpur, in pursuance of an order dated 8.7.1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, under the first proviso to Section 95 (1) (g) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. 1947 (in short the Act) and consequential order dated 8.7.1998 of the Khand Vikas Adhikari, Saraswan, district Saharanpur, thereby informing the Branch Manager, District Co-operative Bank, Saraswan that Khata No. 3323 would hereafter be operated by the committee referred to in the order dated 10.7.1998 in place of the petitioner.2. Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act empowers the State Government to remove Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or Member of a Gram Panchayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, Sahayak Sarpanch or Surpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat on the ground enumerated therein. The first proviso to Section 9...
Ashok Kumar Tripathi Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC71
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in lecturer's grade in the institution in question on a short term vacancy, but admittedly the vacancy on which the petitioner was appointed was not advertised in newspapers having wide circulation which is required under the law as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551, as well as in S. K. Dixit v. D.I.O.S., Agra and others, 1995 (26) ALR 601. The vacancy was advertised in some local newspaper 'Dainik Jantantra' as stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. I am not satisfied that this newspaper 'Dainik Jantantra' is a well known newspaper having widecirculation. There are several well-known newspapers in U. P. in Hindi and English, e.g., Dainik Jagaran, Amar Ujala, Aaj, Rastriya Sahara, etc. in Hindi, and Pioneer, Hindustan Times, Times of India etc. in English, but it is surprising that the vacancy was not advertised i...
Smt. Kalawati Devi Vs. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Mirzapur and O ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC114; (1998)3UPLBEC2048
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner has been removed from the post of Pradhan by non-confidence motion carried out against her in a meeting held on 30.7.1998. Mr. A. S. Diwakar learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said motion was carried on after the writ petition was filed challenging the issue of the notice. Since in view of the decision of this Court that after the motion is carried on, the question of notice may not be gone into, Shri. Diwakar confined his submission on the merits of the motion that has been carried out. This fact has been brought by way of supplementary affidavit filed subsequently annexing the minutes of the 'No-Confidence Motion' itself.2. Mr. Diwakar contends that Rule 33B of the U. P. Panchayat Rules, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Rules) in sub-rule (3) provides that after the discussion is over the motion shall be put to vote and the voting shall be by secret ballot. Sub-rule (5) prescribes the detail procedure as (o how the voting is to be conduc...
Yaseen Vs. Vith Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahr and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC192
J.C. Gupta, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Tandon appearing for the petitioner and Km. Anu Jaiswal appearing for the respondent No. 2. Km. Anu Jaiswal gives a statement that she does not intend to file any counter-affidavit and this writ petition may be heard and disposed of finally. With the consent of parties' counsel and in the circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally.2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed suit-for rent and ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of default of payment of rent alleging therein that the defendant-petitioner was in arrears of rent from 1.10.87 which remain unpaid despite service of notice of demand on 6.9.1993. The petitioner contested the suit alleging that no amount of rent was due as he had paid entire rent to the plaintiffs but no receipt was issued therefor. The trial court did not accept this assertion of the tenant about the payment of rent to the landlords and recorded a finding that the defendant-petitioner was a defaulter...
Sharda Prasad Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad and Ano ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)AWC161
J.C. Gupta, J.1. Heard petitioner's counsel. Shri Rajesh Tandon appears for caveator-respondent No. 2.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.8.1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer 1st, Allahabad, whereby the accommodation in question has been declared vacant.3. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under the deeming provision of Section 12 (3) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has treated the accommodation in question as vacant. Section 12 (3) of the Act runs as follows :'In the case of a residential building, if the tenant or any member of his family builds or otherwise acquires in a vacant state or gets vacated a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the building under tenancy is situate, he shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy : Provided that if the tenant or any member of his family had...
Dr. Ram Prakash Misra (Decd.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Ivth Addl. District Ju ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC715
J.C. Gupta, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the tenant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.9.83 passed by respondent No. 1 in S.C.C. Revision preferred by the landlord against the order of the trial court dated 11.2.1981.2. During the pendency of suit filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner for rent and ejectment, the respondent No. 2 moved an application for striking off the defence' of the petitioner for non-compliance of the provisions of Order XV. Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner filed reply to the said application stating that since he has already deposited the entire rent due upto 31.3.81 under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, petitioner's application deserved rejection. The trial court rejected the said application of the respondent No. 2 by the order dated 11.2.81.Aggrieved by that order, the landlord-respondent No. 2 preferred revision and the same has been allowed by the respondent No. 1 under the impugned order and th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »