Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2005(107)FLR47]
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 25.1.2000 communicated by letter dated 28.1.2000 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) whereby the claim for appointment of the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 has been refused. It has been stated by the petitioner that in the aforesaid communication, no reason has been given for such denial and as such the same is liable to be quashed by this court. It is further stated that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father who was a Tube-well Operator having been given appointment in the year 1987. The appointment letter dated 19.3.87 has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The appointment was temporary for a period of three years and he could be considered for re-appointment. Prior to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2005All286; 2005(4)AWC3219
Yatindra Singh , J.1. The main question involved in this writ petition is, whether an auction sale can be set aside for the reason that estimated value of the auctioned property was not mentioned in the sale proclamation.THE FACTS2. District Cooperative Federation Ltd (the petitioner) is a central cooperative society registered under the UP Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioner operates a cold storage and has property situate at Arazi no. 182 Cantonment, Varanasi. The cold storage was not successful and there were arrears. Two portions (area 17200 Sq feet and 13200 sq: feet total 30400 sq feet) of open land in Arazi no. 182 of the petitioner were attached on 6th June 2003 for payment of labour dues amounting to Rs, 5,04,177.80.3. A sale proclamation in respect of attached land was issued on 6.11.2003 fixing 15.12.2003 for the auction but no auction was held on that date. In the meantime, the Collector received intimation of some more dues (labour as well as electricity) to be recov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2749
S.U. Khan, J.1. Landlord-respondent No. 3 Mohd. Yunus filed two suits for eviction against both the petitioners who are his tenants. Both the petitioners are independent tenants of two adjoining shops. The landlord purchased the accommodation in dispute in the year 1976. According to the petitioners the accommodation in dispute was in the form of a single dokhani shop, which was converted by the landlord into two shops by erecting partition wall in between and making consequential repairs. On 22.8.1983, S.C.C. Suit No. 373 of 1983 was filed against petitioner No. 1 and S.C.C. Suit No. 374 of 1983 was filed against petitioner No. 2. In the plaints it was stated that the constructions were new hence U. P. Rent Regulation Act (U.P. Act No. 13, 1972) was not applicable to the shops in dispute. J.S.C.C., Meerut on 25.10.1986 decreed both the suits holding that the shops in dispute were new construction. Against the said judgment and decree two revisions were filed. IXth Additional District ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2754
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. This is landlady's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by her against tenant respondent No. 2 Nand Lal Narula on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (U. P. Rent Regulation Act).2. Property in dispute is a house adjoining portion of which is in possession of the landlady. Landlady's husband was employed in Municipal Board, Jhansi and was going to retire on 31.8.1981. Landlady filed release application in April, 1981, stating therein that by virtue of his employment husband of the landlady was provided a house by the Municipal Board and after retirement he would have to vacate the said house hence accommodation in dispute should be released. It was further stated that the adjoining portion of the accommodation in dispute already in possession of the landlady was too small to satisfy her need. It was stated by the landlady and categorically admitted by the tenant that the tenant had also acquired an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3317
S. U. Khan, J,1. This writ petition has been filed by tenant Mangroo Ram since deceased and survived by legal representatives and arises out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlady respondent No. 2 Smt. Lakshman Devi since deceased and survived by her son Govind Jaiswal on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application was registered as Misc. Case No. 4 of 1982 on the file of Prescribed authority/Munsif, Mirzapur. prescribed authority rejected the release application on 25.8.1984. Against the said order landlady filed Rent Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1984 before District Judge, Mirzapur. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the prescribed authority and allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 17.10.1985, hence this writ petition.2. Property in dispute is a shop. It was stated in the release application that landlady appellant had one son aged about 11 years (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3319
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused counter and rejoinder-affidavits. Petitioners and respondent No. 2 are defendants in O.S. No. 416 of 1993 which has been filed by respondent No. 1, Mohan Lal and is pending before Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division (III), Jaunpur. In the suit trial court on 4.1.1999 passed an order to the effect that the suit shall proceed ex parte against petitioners-defendants. Subhadra Devi defendant/respondent No. 2 had filed written statement in the suit on 3.5.1993. However, petitioners who are also defendants in the suit did not file any written statement. Petitioners-defendants filed an application before the trial court for recalling of the order dated 4.1.1999. In the application they stated that Subhadra Devi defendant No. 1 respondent No. 2 was doing pairvi on behalf of all the defendants, however, keeping the petitioners in dark she filed written statement only on her behalf and in view of this order dated 4.1.1999 was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3432
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is landlady's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by her against tenant respondent No. 1 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (U. P. Rent Regulation Act). The release application was registered as Misc. Case No. 18 of 1986 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Azamgarh. The need set up in the release application was for parking car in the property in dispute. Property in dispute is a garage which is being used for commercial purposes by the tenant respondent No. 1. Prescribed authority by judgment and order dated 24.2.1989 allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and order tenant respondent No. 1 filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1989. Vlth Addl. District Judge, Azamgarh through judgment and order dated 26.8.1991 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by prescribed authority and dismissed the release application, hence this writ petition by lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3434
S.U. Khan, J.1. Petitioners are landlords. Property in dispute is a room facing road, situate in Kanpur from where tenant also carried on the business of money lending. The rate of rent is Rs. 17.50. Initially one Harendra Kumar Basu was the tenant, against whom landlords filed release application under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as Rent Case No. 663 of 1977 and at the relevant time it was pending before Prescribed Authority/ Additional Munsif-XVI, Kanpur. During pendency of the release application Harendra Kumar Basu (H. K. Basu) died on 20.1.1981. Landlords petitioners applied for substitution of heirs/legal representatives of H. K. Basu which was allowed. On 16.10.1981 Ravindra Nath Singh (R. N. Singh) respondent No. 6 and Devendra Nath Singh (D. N. Singh) respondent No. 7 filed application before prescribed authority that original tenant H. K. Basu had executed a Will in respect of the tenancy of the disputed room and they were living with the decea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005CriLJ4543
ORDERR.P. Yadav, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16-7-1986, passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli convicting the appellant under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 161 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2.000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one year.2. Appellant was employed as a Junior Engineer under the Development Authority, Reebareli at the relevant time. The prosecution story as unfolded in evidence runs as follows.3. Shri Devi Kumar Gupta, P.W. 2 has a house at Kotwali Road, Raebareli. One Smt. Pratima Kumari was a tenant therein. She is said to have raised certain unauthorised constructions and also made material alterations in the building. Shri Devi Kumar Gupta. P.W. 2, who is the complainant made a report to the Development Authority, Raebareli which was allegedly inquired into by the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3858M
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. This writ petition arises out of release proceedings initiated by original landlady Smt. Kundru Devi since deceased and survived by the petitioner against tenant respondent No. 3 Gopal on the ground of bona fide need of her son under Section 21 of U.P. Rent Regulation Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 20 per month. Landlady had three shops in a row. Western shop was being used by her son who is now petitioner, eastern shop is in tenancy occupation of respondent No. 3 and the middle shop was also in possession of another tenant Sahdeo. All the three shops are of 5 feet 3 inch by 8 feet 10 inch. Landlady filed two release applications against both the tenants. The release application against respondent No. 3 was registered as P.A. Case No. 170 of 1983 and release application against the other tenant Sahdeo was registered as P.A. Case No. 169 of 1983. Prescribed authority/IInd Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi, allowed bo...
Tag this Judgment!