Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-14-1985
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
Decided on : Mar-01-1985
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
Decided on : Oct-03-1985
Reported in : AIR1986All196
A.N. Verma, J.1. A learned single Judge finding that there was a conflict of opinion between various decisions of this Court rendered by Division Benches and single Judges referred the following question for consideration by a larger Bench :'Whether a prospective allottee has a right to file an objection and contest the application for release made by the landlord for a building or a part thereof after the deletion of the original Rule 13(4) of the Rules under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972?'2. This Bench has been constituted for resolving the above controversy. Since only a specific question has been referred to us we do not consider it necessary to set out the facts of this case in detail. We will, however, mention the relevant facts as briefly as possible with a view to indicating the circumstances in which the question has arisen in the instant case. The dispute relates to the second storey of a building situate at Haldwani. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the landlords of that buil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-11-1985
Reported in : AIR1986All174
B.D. Agarwala, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the II Additional Civil Judge, Agra, dt. 7th March, 1970,2. The dispute relates to a portion of the building known as Daulat Niwas situate in Agra The following pedigree serves to elucidate the relevant fact : -- R. B. Daulat Ram | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Kanhaiyalal Krishan Lal Shyam Lal | | Lakshmichand | --------------------------------------------- | | | Kesri Chand Raghunath Laxman Pd.3. According to plaintiffs case his father made purchase of one-third share, pertaining to the branch of Shyamlal, in this building in execution of decree dt. 16th. Aug. 1950, in Original Suit No. 104 of 1948. the decree-holder obtained joint possession along with other co-sharers and symbolic possession against the existing tenants on 10th Feb., 1956. The principal relief sought in the suit, instituted in 1958 giving rise to this appeal, is partition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-28-1985
Reported in : AIR1987All4
B.D. Agrawal, J.1. This First Appeal No. 54 of 1964 coming up quarter of a century after ' the action commenced on Oct. 6, 1959 wherein, as is not unusual, the suitor has not survived, is another grim reminder to crying need for urgent judicial reform in the system. To apportion blame is not the object; this is the resultant of a cumulative set of factors --the various actors having different role to play.2. One Jyoti Prasad Upadhyaya was the owner of house No. 18 The Mall, Agra Cantonment, Agra. Land is freehold covered under old grant. There was partition by a Civil Court decree -- the division was by metes and bounds. Govind Behari Lal held, by purchase made on 15th Feb., 1941, 1/4th share (which was separated) and shown as house No. 18/1 in the Cantonment Board record. On his death his son Jai Raj Behari Lal and the widow made transfer of houseNo. 18/1 by registered sale deed dated 2nd Dec., 1957, in favour of Vishwanath Goyal and his wife for consideration. The vendees intended to...
Tag this Judgment!