Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PREM CHANDRA AND ANOTHER versus RAM BABU

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Prem Chandra And Another v. Ram Babu - WRIT - A No. 55776 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21411 (19 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

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been directed against the order dated 22.9.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge Ist, Allahabad in Revision No. 463 of 2006.

Respondent- landlord filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act no. XIII of 1972') for release of the disputed accommodation in the possession of the petitioner-tenants on the ground of his own need.

The case of the petitioners is that they moved an application dated 4.9.2006 for supply of relevant documents by the landlord which were filed in support of the release appliation.  In compliance of order of the Prescribed Authority, the landlord supplied the copies of relevant documents to the petitioners but the petitioners had not paid costs.  Accordingly, the Prescribed Authority directed the petitioners to make payment of the costs otherwise, they were restrained from participating in the proceedings.

Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision against the order dated 12.9.2006 passed by the Prescribed Authority imposint costs.  The revision of the petitioners have been dismissed by the impugned order.

Aggrieved, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that it is an interlocutory order regarding payment of costs by the petitioners. The case has not been decided finally.  The orders impugned are concurrent orders of Courts below. No illegality, infirmity or perversity has been shown by the counsel for the petitioners in the impugned orders. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage against an interlocutory order exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Dated 19.12.2006

kkb


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.