Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ARUN KUMAR TADIA ADVOCATE versus RENT CONTROL EVICTION OFFICER AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Arun Kumar Tadia Advocate v. Rent Control Eviction Officer And Others - WRIT - A No. 6300 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1817 (6 February 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

This is landlord's petition.  Petitioner is owner and landlord of house in dispute. The house in dispute was let out to respondent no. 2- Sri Jai Ram Singh Yadav, alleged relative of the present Chief Minister Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav.  It is alleged that the tenant has constructed his own house at Lalitpur in Civil Lines. This fact has been admitted by the tenant in his written statement.  

The petitioner-landlord filed S.C.C Suit no. 1 of 2003 under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulatio of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act), 1972 (hereinafter referred to as '' U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972'),  It is alleged that due to political influence, his suit is not being decided.

At this stage, the only prayer of counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 1- Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lalitpur may be directed to decide the aforesaid suit within some time frame.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case, a perusal of order sheet dated 29.6.2006, appended as Annexure 2 to the writ petition makes it clear that the suit was filed as far back as in 2003 but the same is not being decided for one reason or the other. Delay in decision of the cases erodes the faith of public in judiciary. If cases are not decided expeditiously it may create irreparable loss and harassment to one of the parties to the dispute.

It is expected that the respondent no. 1 will decide S.C.C. suit no. 1 of 2003 as expeditiously, as possible, preferably within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

Dated 6.2.2007

kkb


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.