Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. JOLLY CHAKROVARTI AND OTHERS versus MITTHU LAL MANJHI AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Jolly Chakrovarti And Others v. Mitthu Lal Manjhi And Another - WRIT - A No. 19200 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 6892 (16 April 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 V.C. Misra, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-tenants against the impugned order dated 8.2.2007 passed by the appellate Court  in Rent Appeal No.194 of 2003 upholding the order dated 18.11.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-Prescribed Authority, Varanasi releasing the accommodation in question in favour of the respondents-landlord on the basis of finding that the landlord bona-fidely required the residential occupation for their personal need and of their family. This finding of fact is based on the evidence and relevant material on record.

I have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants at length.

It is admitted case of the petitioners-tenants that they have been living and occupying the premises in question for the last more than 30 years and have not ever made any efforts to have another accommodation on rent after the notices were served by the landlord to vacate the premises in question in their favour. This Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with the findings of fact based on the evidence on record nor would re-appropriate the evidence. I do not find it to be a fit case for exercising my extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants has prayed that the tenants may be allowed six months' time to vacate the premises in question and undertakes to vacate the premises positively by the end of six months and handover the peaceful possession to the landlord.

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the request made by the petitioners-tenants, the petitioners-tenants are allowed to occupy the accommodation for a period of six months from today and on expiry of the said period handover the vacant peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord in terms of the above said undertaking given by the petitioners-tenants.  

No order as to costs.  

April 16, 2007

Hasnain

wp.19200.07


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.