Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SULTAN AHMAD versus CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) MAU AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sultan Ahmad v. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mau And Others - WRIT - A No. 20408 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21337 (18 December 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

     Court no. 7                                                        

         Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20408 of 2006

Sultan Ahmad                     versus    Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mau/

                                                          Prescribed Authority and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

 

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.3 filed an application under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority, Mau for release of the disputed shop under the tenancy of the petitioner. The petitioner filed objection thereto denying the averments made in the release application. Respondent no.3 filed affidavits of Mohd. Shahid, Faiyaz Ahmad and Khalid Ahmad.  Thereafter the petitioner moved an application (paper no.26ga) before the Prescribed Authority for permitting him to cross-examine some of the landlords who had filed W/s that the shop in dispute has fallen in the share of respondent no.1 and they have no share in it.

Respondent no.3 also filed his objection (paper no.28Ga) to the application filed by the petitioner.

The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 4.5.2005 rejected the application of the petitioner for cross-examination of the sons of respondent no.1 who had filed affidavits on behalf of the landlords.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 4.5.2005 the petitioner filed a revision before the Revisional Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 9.3.2006, hence this writ petition.

The case of the petitioner before the Court below was that on the death of the landlord the tenancy devolved upon all of the seven brothers. Six of the brothers have stated in the written statement that the shop in dispute has fallen in the share of respondent no.1 who is the landlord and they have no interest in it.

The Court below has rightly rejected the application for cross-examination of the other six brothers on the basis of W/s filed by them that they have no share in the property (shop) in dispute  as it has come in the written statement by the sons of the landlord  that they have no share in the disputed shop, hence their cross-examination is not material. Moreover, the petitioner-tenant has stated that the tenancy has devolved upon all the brothers, hence the burden of proof lies on him and not upon the respondent-landlords in whose favour all the other brothers have already admitted in the written statement that they have no share in the disputed shop.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.800/-.  Since the counsel for the respondents has declined to accept cost of Rs.800/- the cost of Rs. 800/- shall be deposited in the name of Registrar General in the A/c of Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre within three weeks from today.

Since the matter is old one and it is provided under the U.P.Act No.13 of 1972 that such matters be decided within two months, the authority below shall decide the release application within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after giving an opportunity of producing evidence and hearing to the petitioner.

Dated 18.12.2006

CPP/-

             

 


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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