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.
State of U.P. Vs. Har NaraIn Tandon and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2385
Anjani Kumar, J.1. These two writ petitions, namely. Writ Petition Nos. 27783 of 2000 and 27784 of 2000 have been filed by petitioner-tenant, the State of U. P. challenging the common orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the appellate authority under the provision of Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Since both the writ petitions 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 are that the petitioner-State of U. P. Is admittedly the tenant of the accommodation in question. Respondent No. 1, Har Narain Tandon is the owner and landlord of the aforesaid accommodation in question, in which the office of Superintendent of Police (Regional), Special Branch, Intelligence Department at U. P., Bareilly was situated. Initially the rent payable by the petitioner was Rs. 192 per month. In the year 1979, the respondent-landlord filed an application under Secti...
Shital Prasad JaIn Vs. Ist Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2536
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 9.2.1995 passed by appellate authority in Rent Appeal No. 58 of 1988. whereby the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 17.10.1988 passed by Prescribed Authority. 2. The facts leading to the filing of present wril pelition are that petitioner Shital Prasad. who is admittedly a tenant of the accommodation in dispute, which is a non-residential accommodation, is carrying on business of Hotel, The landlord-respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U, P. Act No. 13 of 1972. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for release of the accommodation in his favour to set up his son in the hotel business as the accommodation in dispute is most suitable for running the hotel business. The petitioner-tenant repelled the allegations made by the landlord and contended...
Vijay Pal Goel Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2381
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by. petitioner Vijay Pal Goel, who alleges himself to be a tenant of the shop in question, against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Prescribed Authority), Muzaffarnagar dated 10.4.2002, Annexure-11 to the writ petition, whereby the application for allotment filed by Dr. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, son of Sri Nemchand Agarwal was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the shop in question is not vacant and is occupied by petitioner Vijay Pal Goel. The matter came up to this Court earlier as two writ petitions were filed, one by Vijay Pal Goel, the present petitioner being Writ Petition No. 9597 of 2001 and the another by Praveen Gupta being Writ Petition No. 34797 of 2000. This Court since found that both the writ petitions have arisen out of by common facts, therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together and decided by the common judgment vide order dated 20....
S.B. Bhardwaj (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Xivth Additional District Judge an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2397A
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. These two writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos. 34176 of 2000 and 34178 of 2000 filed by Sri S. B. BhardwaJ (since deceased) and now represented through his legal heirs and Sri R. S. Misra challenging the common orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the appellate authority under the provision of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, since raise common question of facts and law, thus being disposed of by this judgment together.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition being Writ Petition No. 34176 of 2000 are that respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In both the petitions, who were admittedly residing in house No. 13/152, Parmat, Kanpur, purchased premises No. 112/329, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur, which had four tenants in different co-tenements, filed an application against all the four tenants for the release of the accommodation in respect of tenancy of all the co-tenements Including the petitioners under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (...
Radhey Shyam Vs. Xth Additional District and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2378
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the tenant against the judgment dated 19th February, 1996, passed by the Small Causes Court, whereby the suit filed by the landlord-respondent for eviction of petitioner due to arrears of rent demanded from the petitioner was dismissed. The demand was for arrears of rent and water-tax which had not been paid by the petitioner inspite of demand and further the tenant had sub-let the accommodation in favour of one Shri Hari Bhagwan Taneja and thus may be liable for eviction. This suit was filed by the landlord for the eviction, which was contested by the tenant-petitioner. After affording opportunity to the parties the trial court found that accommodation In fact was sub-let by the petitioner-tenant in favour of Shri Hari Bhagwan Taneja, in full knowledge of the landlord. The suit for eviction was, therefore, dismissed with costs. The defence taken by the tenant was that the landlord was in knowledge of the fact that Shri Hari Bhagwan Tan...
Smt. Sundari Devi and ors. Vs. Viith Additional District Judge and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2383
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the order dated 4.8.1990, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 74 of 1985. whereby appeal filed by the landlord has been allowed and the order dated 30.10.1985 passed by respondent No. 2 has been set aside.2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the landlord was residing according to own admission of the petitioners-tenants, in a rented accommodation at Agra when he purchased this building in question in the year 1979. He thereafter filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for release of the building in question for personal requirement, as stated above in the year 1980, which was in occupation of the tenants. The first objection that has been taken by the petitioners-tenants is that the application under Section ...
Smt. Soni Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2469
S. Harkauli, J. 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is by the defendant in Original Suit No. 385 of 2002. 3. An application for interim injunction was moved by the plaintiff in the suit. The trial court by its order dated 16.5.2002. Annexure-4 to this petition, stated that it was of the opinion after examining the record that it was not a fit case for grant of 'ex parte' interim injunction without hearing the other side and accordingly issued notices fixing 11.7.2002. 4. Against this order, the plaintiff preferred Civil Revision No. 526 of 2002, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 25.5.2002 passed by the District Judge. Allahabad. 5. While allowing the revision, the learned District Judge has directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed house till the date fixed, i.e., 11.7.2002 and also directed that the application for interim injunction be decided on merits by the trial court on the next date, i.e., 1...
Akhilesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Anand Kumar Agarwal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3106
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was dismissed by me vide my order dated 4th July, 2002, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.3. The facts giving rise to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioners, who are landlord of the shop in question, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred, to as the 'Act'), for the release of the shop in question on the ground that they want to set up their one of the sons, who is still unemployed and has not studied more, in business of kirarta and for that purposes the need is bond fide. It has also been stated in the application that the tenant has sufficient accomm...
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Rajeshwar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2507; (2002)3UPLBEC2393
M. Katju and R.B. Misra, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 1.5.2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). The respondent No. 1 was a candidate in the Civil Services (Main) Examination of 2001 where hehas to appear in nine papers including two compulsory papers, namely, English and Indian Language (Hindi). He appeared in all the papers except English. As regards the English paper, he was to appear on 20.10.2001 in the afternoon from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. However, he fell victim of Food Poisoning (Castro enteritis and dehydration) and was hospitalised. He was discharged from hospital on 21.10.2001. Due to this illness, he could not appear in the English paper. However, after discharge, he appeared in the Hindi paper.3. The copies of the petitioner were not examined by the Public Service Commission because he did not appear in the English compulsory paper. He made a representatio...
Jamil Ahmed Vs. Industrial Development Commissioner and Principal Secr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2357; [2002(94)FLR821]; (2002)2UPLBEC1958
M. Katju, J.1. The petitioner is permitted to delete the name of respondent No. 5 in the array of parties.2. Heard Sri S. M. A. Kazmi learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General and Sri Vinod Misra for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.3. The petitioner has challenged the two impugned orders dated 6.6.2002. Annexures-9 and 10 to the writ petition and the impugned order dated 21.6.2002, Annexure-17 to the writ petition. The petitioner was Inspector in the Railway Protection Force having been appointed on 13.3.1973 as stated in para 4 of the writ petition. It is alleged in para 8 of the writ petition that on 3.6.1992, the Chairman, NOIDA took the petitioner on deputation as Assistant Development Manager, NOIDA and !t is alleged that he has performed his duties with utmost sincerity and outstanding record upto 5.1.1993. In para 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that on 5.1.1993, the petitioner came back to his original cadre. i.e., R.P.S.F.4. In para 10 of the writ petition, it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »