Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2001(1)AWC671; (2001)1UPLBEC741
ORDERV. M. Sahai, J.1. In this petition filed by a teacher appointed to short-term vacancy, one of the questions that arises for consideration is whatis the effect of rescission of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 (in brief Second Order) by insertion of Section 33E in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982 (in brief the Act).2. Maharshi Durbasa Inter College, Kakara Dubawal, Allahabad (in brief institution) is a recognised and aided institution. Sri Yaduraj Singh an Assistant Teacher L.T. grade took medical leave from 1.1.1998 to 30.6.1998. The management on 1.1.1998 intimated the District Inspector of Schools (in brief D.I.O.S.) to fill the short-term vacancy. This letter does not appear to have been received by the D.I.O.S. The management notified the vacancy on 7.1.1998 on the notice board and on the same day advertisement was published in newspaper 'Dainik Jagran'. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1997All314
ORDER1. The present revision has been filed by the tenant under S. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 16-8-1985 passed by Sri D. C. Srivastava, IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in S.C.C. Suit No. 117 of 1982.2. By the decree which is impugned in the present revision, respondent's suit for eviction of the applicant from the accommodation and land in suit, which in the common parlance is called 'petrol pump' and for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month w.e.f. 1-7-80 till the date of eviction has been decreed with cost.3. For the purpose of effective disposal of the revision, facts of the case which are not disputed may be briefly stated as follows:--M/s. Kailash Motors (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') under an agreement dated 4-7-1960 let out the property in suit (hereinafter called 'building') to M/s. Standard Vacuum Oil Company on rent of Rs. 500/- per month for a period of ten years with the liberty to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1986All270
ORDERS.D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a civil revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 2. A Suit No. 1 of 1983 was filed by one Smt. Nirmal Kumari, the opposite party, against the revisionist in the Court of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Fatehpur, in hiscapacity as the Judge, Small Cause Courts at Fatehpur, for ejectment and recovery of arrearsof rent etc. 3. The case of the plaintiff opposite party was that the revisionist had obtained the premises in dispute on rent on 27th June, 1979, and had executed a rent note and delivered it to the plaintiff opposite party. On that date, he paid rent only for one month and, thereafter, did not pay the rent, hence the suit . 4. The revisionist contested the suit on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He did not execute the rent note dated 27th June, 1979, nor did he sign any such document nor did he pay rent for the month of July 1979. 5. During the trial of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All287
ORDERMukerji, J. 1. This is an application in revision by a defendant who had been sued under Section 5 (4), Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The plaintiff in the suit was the tenant. He sued the landlord on the ground that the rent of Rs. 75, to which he had agreed, was much above the reasonable rent for the premises and consequently he claimed that the rent should be fixed in accordance with the 'reasonable rent' payable in respect of the premises in suit. The premises of which the plaintiff was the tenant were not substantial buildings in any sense. They were more or less tin sheds having small accommodation but these premises were situated in a very busy locality commercially and consequently they were in great demand and apparently landlords were able to get very high rents for them. 2. I may also note that the landlord himself also filed a suit against the tenant, namely Shri Diwan Chand (plaintiff in suit no. 754 of 1949) for arrears of rent at the rate of Its. 75 per mensem. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1973All596
Mathur, J. 1. Special Appeal No. 499 of 1972 is by Hakim Singh, petitioner against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing his Writ Petition No. 3306 of 1970, wherein the judgments and decrees of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner in a revenue suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were challenged. This appeal was preferred even though under the Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972. (U. P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Ordinance), later replaced by the Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1972. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amending Act') such an appeal was not maintainable. In the Special Appeal the petitioner has challenged the constitutionality of the Amending Ordinance and the Amending Act. At the time of the hearing of the Special Appeal at the stage of admission the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1993All72
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions challenging the orders of the Consolidation authorities by whichthe claim of respondent No. 4 has been accepted regarding his 1/2 share in the disputed khatas.2. The parties are related to each other as given in the following pedigree. Elan | Shital | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | P | Ram ---------------- Bakshi | | | Parsan | | | Ganesh | | | Bodi | | | Mahadeo | Gaji | ------------------------------------- Rampher | | Angnu ------------------------------------- Raja Ram | Sita Ram | Jokhu3. The dispute relates to two khatas namely, Khata No. 215 and Khata No. 220 situate in village Noorpur, Pergana Sikandara district Allahabad. Even prior to the start of the consolidation operation in the village in question, there was litigation between the parties and their predecessors-in-interest regarding Khata No. 215. In the year 1958 Raja Ram and Sita Ram filed suit under S. 229B of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2007)207CTR(All)125; [2008]304ITR413(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for opinion to this Court:Whether in law and on facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the 'gross maintainable rent' should be adopted on the basis of 'annual reasonable rent' as per UP Rent Control Legislation ?2. The present reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1976-77.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The assessee, an HUF, owns a building, which was occupied by the assessee for its own residential purposes. The value of that property was to be determined in accordance with Rule 1BB of the WT Rules. The question that arose was as to what should be the 'gross maintainable rent'. The contention of the assessee before the CWT(A) was that 'gross maintainable rent' should be taken to be the municipal valuation as determined by the Cantonment Board. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1960All211
V.D. Bhargava, J. 1. These are two connected special appeals against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court by the plaintiff of two different suits. They were connected because common questions of law arose. Both the appeals were disposed of by the learned single Judge by one judgment.2. The facts of the case arising out of Regular Suit No. 165 of 1955 are as follows : The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of house No. 288/63 Aishbagh Yahiyaganj Ward, Lucknow, by means of a purchase dated 29-6-1953, Ex. 9. He alleged that defendant No. 1 was his tenant and defendant No. 2 was the sub-tenant, that he obtained permission from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to eject the defendants and also gave notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act but since the defendants have not vacated the premises hence the suit. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants were in arrears of rent and defendant No. 1 had sublet to defendant No. 2 and on that ground also th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1985All314
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. The respondent 1 is a registered partnership firm engaged in manufacture of block glass and glass bangles in Firozabad (district Agra). The respondents 2 to 6 are partners of this firm. To run the unit the respondents need steam coal -- a controlled commodity which they have to transport by rail from collieries situate in the eastern region of the country. Under the existing scheme, sponsoring is done by the Director of Industries, U.P. (respondent 10) within the specified ceiling limits. This is considered by the Director, Movement (Railways) (the petitioner) in the light of priorities allocated under the Preferential Traffic Schedule formulated by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 27-A Railways Act. The Director, Movement accords sanction whereupon allotment of wagons is done from time to time, depending on the availability of coal and coal wagons.2. In October, 1977, the respondents 1 to 6 instituted Original suit No. 298 of 1977 in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All48
Agarwala, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was a monthly tenant of a shop at Lucknow belonging to him, that the monthly rent was Rs. 18 12 0 that he had obtained the permission of the Rent Control Officer to eject the defendant, that he had served the defendant with a notice to quit by 31-1-1950, that this notice was served on the defendant on 23-12-1949 and that the defendant had cot vacated the shop in spite of notice and that therefore he had to bring the suit for his ejectment. He claimed a sum of Rs. 22 12-0 as arrears of rent. In defence the defendant admitted that he was a tenant of the shop in dispute for a long time and that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 18-12-0 per month. He did not however admit the rest of the allegations with regard to tenancy on the ground that he had no knowledge thereof. He admitted the receipt of the notice to quit but he did not ...
Tag this Judgment!