Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. SHUSHMA MISHRA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. Shushma Mishra v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 21270 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 8007 (30 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

COURT NO.29

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.21270 OF 2007

Dr.Shushma Mishra.       ....Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others. ... .Respondents

***************

Hon.Dr.B.S.Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

( By Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

The husband of the petitioner was Reader in an institution named as Shri Durgaji Post Graduate College Chandeshwar, Azamgarh, affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. Petitioner husband died on 06.01.2007. The claim of the petitioner is that from the salary of the petitioner, huge amount has been deducted towards the rent of the house, which was allotted to the husband of the petitioner after the retirement of the father-in-law of the petitioner.

Heard Sri R.N.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Learned Standing Counsel.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a residential house has been initially allotted to the father-in-law of the petitioner and after his retirement, it was allotted to the husband of the petitioner, Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, who was Reader in the Entomology department of the institution. In this regard letter dated 25.07.1987 has been referred, which is annexure-12 to the writ petition. He submitted that the allotment of the house was free of cost.  Therefore, the demand towards the house rent @ 1% from 1987 is not justified.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the letter dated 25.07.1987, annexure-12 to the writ petition does not suggest that the residential accommodation was provided free of cost. He submitted that the husband of the petitioner was residing in the house since 1987 and has not paid any rent. Therefore, demand is justified. He submitted that the petitioner has also been asked to evict  the premises and against eviction and payment of rent, petitioner has filed Original Suit no.173 of 2005, Ashok Kumar Vs. Committee of Management, Shri Durgaji Post Graduate College, Chandewhwar, Azamgarh in which as an interim measure, dispossession of the petitioner has been stayed vide order dated 14.12.2005 but the demand of the interest has not been stayed. In this view of the matter, the deduction towards rent is justified.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petitioner is not able to substantiate its claim that the premises was allotted free of cost. In any view of the matter, since a civil suit is pending in respect of the dispute regarding the eviction and rent, present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.30.04.2007

R./


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.