Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GOVIND PRASAD NIGAM versus GAURI SHANKER AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Govind Prasad Nigam v. Gauri Shanker And Others - WRIT - A No. - 54426 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17400 (5 November 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Shri P.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Amitabh Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner-tenant. Shri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav appears for the respondents-landlord.

This tenant's writ petition arises out of concurrent findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority in their judgments dated 22.2.2001 in Rent Suit No.37 of 1988 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and 1.9.2007 in Rent Control Appeal No.34 of 2001 that the landlord has bonafide need for occupation of the accommodation in dispute. The building in tenancy includes a Dalan, Chajja and toilet of House No.64/218A let out at Rs.10/- per month. It was found that the family of the landlord does not have sufficient accommodation and that apart from one grand son each family members requires atleast one room for their occupation. While comparing with the hardship it was found that the hardship sufferred by the landlord will be greater than the hardship of the tenant, if the premises are not vacated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgments are bad both on the facts and on law. The Courts below have not considered the documentary evidence. Two of the children were married during the pendency of the case and that the status of the tenant will not change if another co-tenant acquires any other accommodation.

I have gone through the findings recorded by the both the Courts below and find that the Courts below have considered the evidence and that their findings are based on cogent, admissible and reliable evidence. There is no scope of interference in these findings. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dt.05.11.2007


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.