Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Diptee Singh v. Ii A.D.J., Mainpuri & Others - WRIT - A No. 25034 of 1988 [2006] RD-AH 2091 (27 January 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Civil Misc. Modification Application No. 18587 of 2006


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25034 of 1988

Diptee Singh Versus II Additional District Judge, Mainpuri and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

This is an extremely frivolous application, which has been filed by the tenant petitioner and it illustrates that not only Rent Control Act is being misused by the tenants but also the process of the court is being misused.

In this case, tenant must have paid Rs. 18000/- as rent during last 50 years  (at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month). However during arguments, learned counsel for the landlord had offered Rs.100000/-(one lakh) to the tenant if he vacated the house in dispute but the said offer was turned down by the tenant.

I allowed this writ petition of the tenant on the ground of subsequent acquisition of a house by the landlord and following the authority of the Supreme Court reported in A.K.Bhatt Vs. R.M.Shah AIR 1997 SC 2510, I directed payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.1995 and at the rate of Rs. 600/- from 1.1.1996 till 31.12.2005. (This writ petition was pending since 1988 and dispossession of the tenant- petitioner was stayed by virtue of stay order).

This application has been filed with the prayer for exempting the tenant from paying enhanced rate rent during pendency of the writ petition.

During argument in the writ petition, learned counsel for the tenant had stated that his client could consider to handover possession of the house in dispute to the landlord only if landlord offered him Rs.180000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand) as Rs. 80000/- had been spent by him in litigation.

In view of the above this application is utterly frivolous and it is dismissed with Rs. 25000/- cost.

Collector, Mainpuri is directed to recover the said amount from the petitioner-tenant like arrears of land revenue and handover the said amount to the landlord.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during dictation of this order requested for dismissal of the application as withdrawn.

The prayer is rejected.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.