Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-19-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1250
S.K. Singh and A.P. Sahi, JJ.1. This petition arises out of an order passed by the State Government in exercise of its powers under the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, by which the petitioner, who is the Chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Dasna, Ghaziabad, has been deprived of his rights to exercise the financial and administrative powers in view of the charge indicated in the show-cause notice dated 24.10.2008. In view of the decisions, which have been cited at the Bar, we are of the opinion that the questions raised in this petition and that arise out of the interpretations given by this Court in the Division Bench decisions to be referred by us hereinafter, requires an authoritative pronouncement on the questions so raised, hence this reference.2. The facts shorn of details that have led to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner, after having been elected as Chairman, undertook the exercise of getting certain bye-laws notif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-11-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1207
V.M. Sahai and Ran Vijay Singh, JJ.1. These two appeals directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in brief the Tribunal) give rise to an interesting questions of law, whether the statutory order under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in brief the Act) can be deemed to have been passed; whether the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting an application under Section 170 can be challenged in an appeal under Section 173(1); whether the order passed by the Tribunal permitting the insurance company to cross-examine the claimant's witness in absence of the owner satisfies the requirements of law as provided in Section 170 of the Act2. The brief facts are that on 24.1.2005 Shiv Shankar Mishra along-with Dilip Kumar Pandey was going to his residence, driving motor cycle No. UP-65/V-6821. The bus No. UP-42/T-2889 collided with motor cycle. Due to injuries received in the accident Shiv Shanker Mishra died on the spot. The pillion rider Dilip Kumar Pandey was al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-12-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC259
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only point involved in this writ petition is regarding interpretation of the word 'building' used in Section 2 (1) (g) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which is quoted below:2. Exemptions from operation of Act.-(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following, namely:(a) to (f) ... (not relevant).(g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees.3. The precise point involved and argued is as to whether the word 'building' used in the aforesaid clause means only the tenanted building or in case tenanted accommodation is part of a big building, then the word 'building' means the entire building of which tenanted accommodation is a part.4. Landlord-respondent No. 3, Ajay Kumar filed S.C.C. Suit No. 95 of 1998 against tenant petitioner for his eviction from the accommodation in dispute, which is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 400 per month. It was also stated that ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-24-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1806
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These three writ petitions have been filed by the same landlords whose release applications under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, filed on the ground of bona fide need against tenants who are respondent No. 1 in each of these petitions have been rejected. The properties in dispute are three shops adjoining to each other. One shop each is in possession of the respondent No. 1 in each of these writ petitions. The need set up in the release application was that the landlords wanted to settle their son in business who intended to open a departmental store after demolition of the three shops and constructing a new big shop for being used as departmental store. Release application against tenant Ghanshyam Das Sunar since deceased and survived by Jairam Verma was registered as Rent Case No. 27 of 1991, release application against Bhoop Chandra Sharma was registered as Rent Case No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-22-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC635
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of hearing; no one appeared on behalf of tenant respondent, hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the landlord petitioner were heard.2. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 01 of 1992 filed by him against tenant respondent. Initially, suit was decreed by J.S.C.C, Jalaun on 23.04.1994, however in revision, the said judgment was set aside by order dated 13.11.T998 and trial court was directed to decide the suit again. After remand, J.S.C.C./Civil Judge (Junior Division), Konch, District Jalaun dismissed the suit through judgment and decree dated 26.07.2004. Against the said judgment and decree, petitioner filed Revision No. 09 of 2004, which was dismissed by III A.D.J., Jalaun at Oral, through judgment and order dated 16.05.2005, hence this writ petition.Admittedly, rent till 31.03.1990 had been paid by the tenant to the landlord. Admitted rate of rent is Rs. 60/- per month. The dispute is regarding payment of water tax. Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-18-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3720
S.U. Khan, J.1. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent, hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.2. Hearing of this writ petition had been expedited by the Supreme Court through order dated 28.1.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 717 of 2008.3. This is landlady's writ petition, whose release application on the ground of bona fide need has been rejected by both the courts below. Release application filed under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was registered as P.A. Case No. 36 of 1994. Prescribed Authority A.C.J.M. VIII, Allahabad rejected the release application through order dated 9.11.1998. Against the said order, landlady petitioner filed R.C. Appeal No. 302 of 1998. A.D.J., Court No. 18, Allahabad dismissed the appeal through judgment and order dated 8.3.2001, hence this writ petition.4. Property in dispute is residential in nature and situate on the ground floor. On th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-18-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3656
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is tenants' writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 1, Mahavir Prasad filed S.C.C. Suit No. 290 of 1987 against Mahesh Prasad the original tenant for his eviction on the ground of default and recovery of rent. Rate of rent is Rs. 23 per month. Property in dispute is a residential house situate on the ground floor in Ram Bagh, Kanpur City and contains one room, verandah, kitchen and common court-yard. The trial court/II A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar decreed the suit through judgment and decree dated 22.3.1994. Original tenant Mahesh Prasad since deceased and survived by the petitioners filed S.C.C. Revision No. 64 of 1994 against judgment and decree passed by the trial court. V A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar, through judgment and order dated 8.2.2001 dismissed the revision, hence this writ petition.3. Notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was sent on 4.8.1986 and was served upon the tenant on 6.8.1986. In the said notice, rent from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-16-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3991
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This Is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1, Girish Kumar Chaturvedi on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21(1A) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 15 of 1995. In the release application Gopal Prasad, tenant since deceased and survived by the petitioner was Impleaded as opposite party No. 1 and Krishna Kumar Chaturvedl, respondent No. 2, in this writ petition, who is real brother of Girish Kumar Chaturvedl was Impleaded as opposite party No. 2. Property in dispute is a house containing several rooms. In the release application it was stated that applicant was employed as Director of a National Channel J.N.U., Delhi and prior to that he was working at Radio Station, Delhi and prior to that he had also worked on other Radio Stations as Director. It was stated that applicant landlord had writte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-15-2008
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2191
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of tenants respondents.2. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction instituted by him against original tenant, respondent No. 3 Master Salahuddin in the form of S.C.C Suit No. 100 of 1979. Eviction was sought on the ground of default and decree for recovery of arrears of rent was also prayed for. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 50 per month.3. Prior to the filing of the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition, landlord had filed another similar suit being Suit No. 253 of 1973. In the earlier suit, tenant had deposited the entire rent on the first date of hearing, hence suit was dismissed for eviction and landlord was permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by tenant under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Against the said decision, landlord filed revision before the District Judge, which was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-25-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC734
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is tenants' writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 2, Prabhat Kumar Pandey filed S.C.C. Suit No. 02 of 1993 against tenants petitioners for eviction. In the plaint, it was stated that provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 were not applicable on the building in dispute. Tenanted building in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 12/- per month. It was also stated that shop in dispute had been sub-let to Kishori Lal by the tenants petitioners. Ground of material alteration was also taken.3. It was also stated that rent from July, 1992 till October, 1992 had not been paid. It was also stated that at the time of filing of the suit, valuation of the shop must be around Rs. 1 lac, hence rent must be Rs. 10,000/- per year. Notice of termination of tenancy was sent on 27.11.1992. Petitioners were continuing as tenants since before 1983. However condition of the tenanted accommodation ...
Tag this Judgment!