Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SATGURU PRASAD & ANOTHER versus VIIITH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KANPUR NAGAR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Satguru Prasad & Another v. Viiith Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar & Others - WRIT - A No. 29177 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 8644 (28 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29177  of  2001

Satguru Prasad and another vs. VIII Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar,

and another

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners are the tenants of the house in dispute having inherited the same from their deceased father on a rent of Rs.6/- per month. An S.C.C. Suit no. 582 of 1993 filed by the respondent-landlord for ejectment of the petitioners on the allegation that they have demolished the southern wall of the premises in dispute without the consent of respondent no. 3 because of which the building has been disfigured and its value has diminished. The suit was contested by the tenants-petitioners denying the allegation. On an application moved by the respondent-landlord, a Commission was issued for inspection of the house in dispute. Advocate-Commissioner after making spot inspection submitted a report dated 20.1.1995. It was stated in the writ petition that the petitioners have encroached upon the open courtyard by raising 6'3" long wall on North-South and 9'10" long wall on East-West and put a slab on it. It was also stated by the tenants-petitioners that they have only raised new wall in place of the old walls which were falling down.

On the basis of the Commission's report and the oral evidence, the trial court held that the petitioners have encroached upon the courtyard by raising construction and has converted the existing latrine into sewer latrine. In so far as the conversion of latrine is concerned, the trial court held that by constructing the sewer latrine neither the utility nor its value has been diminished nor it has become disfigured. However, with regard to the construction made by encroaching the courtyard the trial court held that the same diminishes the building inasmuch as it affects the light and air. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the trial court decreed the suit. The same finding has been confirmed by the revisional court which dismissed the revision filed by the tenant-petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this court.

I have carefully perused the record of the writ petition and the impugned judgments.

The objection raised by the tenants-petitioners that the alleged wall was already on existence and they have only raised new wall in place of the old one which was falling down has not at all been considered by any of the two courts below. Both the courts below have solely relied upon the commission's report and the oral evidence of the respondent-landlord without even considering the specific objection of the tenants-petitioners. No finding with regard to the objection raised by the tenants-petitioners has been recorded by both the courts below. From a perusal of the impugned judgments, I find no basis for the courts below to have come to the conclusion that by alleged construction in the open courtyard how the value or the utility of the building have been diminished and in what manner it has disfigured. The findings recorded by the two courts below in this regard are totally devoid of any reason.

In view of the above, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.

The writ petition stands allowed.

The petitioners-tenants are paying only Rs.6/- per month as rent which is too meager in the present day. Considering the facts and circumstances, the rent is enhanced to Rs.500/- per month which shall be payable with effect from June, 2006 onwards.

Dt.28.4.2006

Nd.


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.