Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-08-1979
Reported in : AIR1980All242
M.N. Shukla, J.1. In this execution second appeal the question that arises for decision is whether the compromise decree under execution was a nullity and also otherwise inexecutable ?2. The respondent is the owner of a shop in suit which was let out to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 26. The landlord after determining the tenancy by giving a formal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act filed a suit for ejectment with the allegation that the shop was constructed after 1951 and therefore the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. III of 1947) did not apply to it. The landlord prayed for ejectment of the appellant and claimed arrears of rent and past mesne profits up to the date of the filing of the suit. The appellant denied the allegation that the accommodation in suit was constructed after 1951 and took a definite plea that the shop was quite old and had been constructed long before 1951 and hence U. P. Act No. III of 1947 was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-19-1979
Reported in : AIR1980All69
S.C. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal arises from a suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits and damages. The suit arose in the circumstances indicated hereinafter. Respondents 1 and 2 Mohammad Shuaul Islam and Smt. S.K. Islam are the owners of a house situate at Rana Pratap Marg. This house was allotted in favour of the appellant Satya Sindhu Pande on 21-10-1963. In pursuance of this allotment order he entered into possession of the property in dispute. This allotment order related to the entire house. On a writ petition filed by the owners this allotment order was quashed by this court on 2-11-1965. Thereafter another allotment order was passed on 20-1-1966 in respect, of a portion of the house. This order was also quashed by this Court on 3-11-1970 on a writ petition filed by the owners. The owners thereafter filed suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits and damages. The allegation of the owners was 1 hat the accommodation in question was never vacant so as to be availab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-22-1979
Reported in : AIR1979All205
Yashoda Nandan, J. 1. This second appeal has been referred to a larger Bench by a learned single Judge because he found himself in disagreement with the decision of K.B. Asthana, J., in Second Appeal No. 1508 of 1970 Munni Lal v. Pandit Har Prasad and another decided on 13th October, 1972.2. The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for ejectment of his tenant (the appellant) from the premises in suit and for recovery of arrears of rent. The appellant undisputably is the tenant of a house of which the plaintiff respondent is the landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 20. On account of some dispute, the respondent refused to accept rent from the appellant and the latter consequently made an application before the court competent to entertain the same on, the 1st May, 1967 and deposited the rent till then due on the same day, under Section 7-C (1) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act--hereinafter referred to as the Act. Subsequently by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-21-1979
Reported in : AIR1980All270
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. The point which has arisen for determination in these appeals is as to whether the tenants Sita Ram (since dead and his heirs brought on record) and Ram Sewak had incurred forfeiture of their tenancy and had become liable for ejectment under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. The material facts may be briefly stated : Dr. Tara Pad Sinha and his wife Smt. Savitri Devi brought two suits against Sita Ram and Ram Sewak respectively with similar allegations. It was stated that they were the owners of house No. 92 situate in Mohalla Sainyer Gate, Jhansi and the defendants aforesaid were tenants in a room in the lower portion and a room in the first floor of the house in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 9/-and 11/- respectively. They were separately tenants of the two rooms since the time of their predecessors-in-title. At the time of the purchase of the house bv the present plaintiffs the defendants promised to pay rent regularly at the said rate but they com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-20-1979
Reported in : AIR1980All42
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal was initially heard by a Division Bench consisting of Hon. H. N. Seth and Hon. V. K. Mehrotra, JJ. Being of the view that the controversy relating to maintainability of the appeal was of importance, which needed an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench, the following questions were referred for opinion:--1. Whether notwithstanding the provisions of Section 97 (3) of the Amending Act 1976 and amendment of Section 2(2) of the Civil P. C. by Section 3 of that Act, right of a party to file an appeal against an order determining the question falling under Section 47 of the Eivil P. C. remains unaffected because of the provisions contained in Section 97 (2) (a) of the Amending Act ?2. If answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, does Section 97 (2) of the Amending Act preserve the right of appeal against orders passed under Section 47 of the Code only in respect of appeals pending on the date on which the Amending Act came into force or does it permi...
Tag this Judgment!