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


Agan Badi Trng. Centre v. R.C.& E.O. - WRIT - A No. - 23344 of 1991 [2007] RD-AH 16473 (9 October 2007)

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).


Court No.07

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.23344 of 1991

Angan Badi Training Project Centra Gramin Mahila Vikas Sangh Vs. Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Saharanpur and others

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared for the respondents.

Building in dispute is in tenancy occupation of the petitioner, which is running its office there. Respondent No.2, Smt. Chhaya Goel is the landlady and she has got absolutely no objection to the continuance of petitioner as tenant. Allotment applications were filed by respondents No.3, 4 & 5, Amar Singh, Mahesh Dutt Sharma and Gyan Dutt Tyagi. Incidently, all of them were advocates. Respondent No.5 is now no more as per service report. Annexure-1 is copy of inspection report by R.C.I. dated 29.08.1983. Annexure-2 is one line order of the same date 29.08.1983 passed by R.C. & E.O. to the effect that "affix on the notice board and advertise the vacancy and information be sent for 20.09.1983". Vacancy declaration order cannot be passed without hearing the landlord and sitting tenant vide Ganpat Roy Vs. A.D.M., 1985 ARC 73. Moreover, absolutely no reason was given in the vacancy declaration order (Annexure-2). Thereafter, landlady as well as petitioner tenant filed recall applications for recalling the order of declaration of vacancy dated 29.08.1983. R.C. & E.O./ D.S.O. through order dated 24.04.1991 rejecting the recall application. Copy of order is Annexure-8, which is incomplete. The said order appears to have been passed in R.C. Allotment Case No.124 of 1983, Amar Singh and others Vs. Rajendra Garg. The only reason given in the order dated 24.04.1991 is that the building appears to have been constructed before 1975, hence U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 was applicable thereupon. Mere applicability of the Act does not warrant declaration of vacancy. Neither in the first order dated 29.08.1983 nor in the impugned order dated 24.04.1991, it has been mentioned that how vacancy has come into existence.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the orders dated 29.08.1983 and 24.04.1991 are set aside.




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.