Allahabad Court July 2002 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.
Rakesh Shukla Vs. District Magistrate/Sub-divisional Magistrate and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2397; (2002)2UPLBEC1939
M. Katju and D.R. Chaudhary, JJ. 1. The petitioner took a theka. In respect of which the impugned recovery has been issued. The petitioner has not disputed that he has operated the theka but he is not paying the theka money. He is challenging the recovery certificate on the ground that the recovery could not be made as arrears of land revenue and he has relied upon a decision of this Court in Raj Bahadur Singh v. Collector, Etah and Ors., 1985 ACJ 615.2. In our opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of our discretion under Article 226. Writ is a discretionary remedy, and in a writ petition the petitioner must satisfy the Court that not only the law has been violated but equity is also in his favour. If the petitioner only shows that the law has been violated, but there is no equity in his favour, a writ will not be issued. In the present case, even assuming that the law has been violated because the recovery could not be made as arrears of land revenue, yet there is no equity in ...
Kr. Om Autar Vs. District Commandant Home Guard and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC2839
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, challenging the order dated 27.2.1985 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) judgment and order dated 19.5.1987 passed by the respondent No. 4 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and the order dated 18.9.1987 passed by the respondent No. 4 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition).2. It appears from the writ petition that the petitioner is the landlord of Bungalow No. 234A, Katra Chand Khan. Shahjahanpur Road, Bareilly of which the respondent No. 1 is a tenant, the rate of rent originally was Rs, 181.25 p. The petitioner moved an application under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 for enhancement of rent in respect of the said premises to Rs. 5,333.33 per month.3. Initially, the said application under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly by the order dated 22.10.1982.4. The petitioner filed an appeal agai...
Sri NaraIn Gupta Vs. Gur Bachan Singh Saluja and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3059
U.K. Dhaon, J.1. Heard Sri Amit Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri H.S. Jain who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties.2. The petitioner has approached this Court against the judgment and order dated 14.9.1999 by which the suit preferred by the opposite parties was partly decreed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Kheri. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties are the landlord of the premises in dispute and the petitioner was the tenant from 1.6.1989 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 which was later on increased to Rs. 1,100 per month. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was sent by the landlord to the tenant in which the arrears of rent and damages were claimed. The said notice was duly served upon the petitioner. After the service of the notice, neither the arrears of rent were paid to the opposite parties nor the premises was vacated. The opposite parties thereafter filed a suit for arrears of rent and eje...
Smt. Krishna Devi Vs. Additional District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2470
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.2.2002, passed by the appellate authority in Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2000 under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that admittedly petitioner is the tenant and the contesting respondent is landlord of the accommodation in question. The landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act'), for the release of the accommodation in question before the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner tenant is bona fide required by the landlord as the landlord is in the requirement of an additional accommodation because of the growing family. The release application further reveals that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the ...
Neksey Lal Tyagi Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2529
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner tenant against the order dated 20th April, 2002. passed by the appellate authority in appeal under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and also the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 9th October, 1998 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. whereby the application filed by the respondent-landlord for release of the shop in question was allowed and the order of the prescribed authority was affirmed by the appellate authority. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the landlord filed an application under Section 21 (I) (a; of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the shop in question on the ground of bona fide requirement with further allegation that the petitioner-tenant in fact is not carrying any business and the shop in question remains closed. 3. Both the parties exchanged the pleadings and evidence in the form of affidavit. The prescribed au...
Mohammad Jaman Khan Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2524
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-tenant has challenged the orders dated 18.3.1993 and 8.11.1993. passed by the appellate authority as well as the prescribed authority under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent No. 3-landlord filed an application initially in the year 1984 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act'), against the petitioner-tenant for release of the accommodation, which is non-residential accommodation, on the ground that his elder son Prakash is unemployed and he wants to engage him in business. This application has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority, vide its order dated 4.11.1985 on the ground that the landlord has concealed one accommodation, which is in his possession, where he could have set up his sons, if at all he requires the accommodation ...
Krishna Rice and Dal Mill and anr. Vs. Food Commissioner/Food Secretar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2466
S. P. Srivastava and K. N. Sinha,JJ. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel representing the respondents. 2. Perused the record. 3. Taking into consideration the nature of the controversy raised In this case, the learned standing counsel states that no counter-affidavit is proposed to be filed. 4. The only submission urged and pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition is that even though this Court vide the order dated 4.3.2002, disposing of the Writ Petition No. 9320 of 2002 filed by the petitioner had clearly directed the concerned respondent to give a decision disposing of the representation of the petitioner, yet the said authority vide the impugned order dated 21.5.2002 has disposed of the representation giving conclusions only without assigning any reason in support of the aforesaid conclusions. It is also urged that while indicating the total liability of the petitioner to be 1327.70 qntls. ...
Ravindra Nath Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2388; (2002)3UPLBEC2600
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 27.4.2000, passed by the State Government reverting the petitioner from the post of Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax to the post of Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner challenged this order of reversion before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal') which dismissed his claim application by judgment dated 19.11.2001. Both these orders have been impugned in this writ petition.3. The case of the petitioner is that a Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter called as 'the D.P.C.') was held in the year 1998 for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner. The petitioner was considered and recommended by the D.P.C. for promotion. Accordingly, he was promoted to the post of Additional Commissioner vide order dated 16.10.1998. It is contended by the petitioner that he has been reverted to the post of D...
Raghubar Dayal (D) Through L.R. Vs. Ixth Additional District Judge and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2522
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. These two connected writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, arising out of common order, challenging the order passed by the appellate authority dated 27th August, 1997 and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 12th April, 1994 under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. The facts leading to the filing of petitions are that the petitioner Shri Raghubar Dayal and Shri Anand Kumar and others were two tenants. Shri Raghubar Dayal is the tenant of respondent No. 3, landlord. The landlord filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. seeking release of the accommodation under the tenancy of Shri Raghubar Dayal for his bona fide personal requirement and another application was filed against another tenant Shri Anand Kumar. Both these cases were clubbed together by the Prescribed Authority and were heard and decided by a common order, after parties adduced their evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners ...
Smt. Har Piari Devi Gupta and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2379
Anjani Kumar, J.1. These two writ petitions, namely. Writ Petition Nos. 41552 of 1997 and 11836 of 2001 filed by petitioner, Smt. Har Piari Devi Gupta and the landlord, the State of U. P. through Collector, Moradabad, challenging the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the appellate authority under the provision of Section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act'), since raise common question of facts and law, thus being disposed of by this common judgment together.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition being Writ Petition No. 41552 of 1997 are that the respondent No. 1 (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11836 of 2001) is admittedly tenant of the aforesaid accommodation in question. The petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (8) of the Act with the prayer that the rent be enhanced. The said application for enhancement of the rent has been decided by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »