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


Jaffar Mohd. v. Additional District & Sessions Judge & Another - WRIT - A No. 21789 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8301 (25 April 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. Writ Petition No. 21789 of 2006

Jaffar Mohd........vs........Addl District & Sessions Judge & another

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri S.L. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is a tenant's petition challenging the order dated 19.7.2004 passed by the prescribed authority and 4.4.2006 passed by the appellate authority in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

Both the courts below have allowed the application of release after recording a finding about bonafide need and comparative hardship in favour of the respondent-landlord.

After  the matter was heard for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that this petition is concluded by finding of facts recorded by the two courts below.

In view of the concession made by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no scope of interference in the impugned judgment and the writ petition must accordingly, fail.

A request has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to allow one year time to vacate the premises.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner-tenant is allowed one year time to vacate the premises subject to the condition that he files an undertaking before the prescribed authority within one month from today that he shall vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the landlord-respondent within a period of one year and shall also deposit an amount of Rs.2400/- with the prescribed authority for use and occupation of the shop in dispute within one month from today. The respondent-landlord shall be entitled to withdraw the deposit so made.

Subject to aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed.



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.