Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN versus M/S KHURANA ESTATE AGENCIES PVT. LTD. THRU' M.D.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chandra Prakash Jain v. M/S Khurana Estate Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Thru' M.D. - WRIT - A No. 11010 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4148 (22 February 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. 4"

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11010 of 2006.

Chandra Prakash Jain                                                                          .......Petitioner.

Versus

M/s. Khurana Estate Agencies Pvt.

Ltd.,New Delhi through its Managing

Director, Sri Ashok Kuchchhal                                                            ...Respondents.

.............

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after referred to as 'the Act', dated 13th February, 2006, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure No. '1' to the writ petition, whereby the prescribed authority  allowed the application filed by the respondent purported to be an application under Section 23 of 'the Act'.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

The facts leadings to the filing of present writ petition are that respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1)(a) and (b) of 'the Act' before the prescribed authority with the allegation that the accommodation in dispute is in dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction after demolition, therefore the accommodation in dispute may be released in favour of the respondent-landlord.  This application was contested by the petitioner-tenant before the prescribed authority un-successfully.  The prescribed authority vide its order dated 9th August, 1996 allowed the aforesaid application filed by the respondent-landlord and directed the release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord for the purposes for which the application under Section 21 (1)(b) of 'the Act' was filed.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority.  The appellate authority maintained the order passed by the prescribed authority and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant.  It is stated at the Bar that petitioner-tenant has challenged the order passed by the prescribed authority before the appellate authority which is affirmed by the appellate authority.  The orders were affirmed by this Court when writ petition no. 53756 of 2000 was dismissed vide its judgment and order dated 23rd August, 2002.  The petitioner-tenant has filed the objection before the prescribed authority with the allegation that unless the adjacent accommodation which is in the other part of the building in which the accommodation in dispute is situated, is also released in favour of the respondent-landlord, the accommodation in dispute cannot be demolished and re-constructed.  It is this objection which has been rejected by the prescribed authority vide order impugned in the present writ petition and allowed the application of the respondent-landlord.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted that in fact the respondent-landlord is in connivance with the tenant of the adjacent portion of the accommodation in dispute and in fact the accommodation in dispute cannot be reconstructed unless the portion occupied by other tenant is also demolished.

Be that as it may, to me it appears that at this stage, unless the order passed by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority is allowed to be enforced, it cannot be anticipated as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant.  In this view of the matter, I do not find any error, much less error apparent on the face of record in the order impugned passed by the prescribed authority, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  This writ petition therefore has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant lastly submitted that under the impugned order, the prescribed authority has directed the police force to get the accommodation in dispute vacated forcefully from the tenant.  The prescribed authority has already granted one month's time to vacate the accommodation in dispute vide its order dated 9th August, 1996, which has been affirmed up to this Court.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the prescribed authority that one month's time granted by order dated 9th August, 1996 to vacate the accommodation in dispute by the tenant will now start from today.

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is dismissed.  However, there will be no order as to costs.

Dated: 22.02.2006.

Rks.


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.