Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF U.P. versus IV ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State Of U.P. v. Iv Addl. Distt. Judge & Another - WRIT - A No. 15151 of 1999 [2004] RD-AH 1538 (29 November 2004)

 

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

Civil Misc. W P No.15151of 1999

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

This petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.98 and 31.5.93 passed by the Courts below in proceeding u/s 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 whereby the rent of the premises in dispute has been enhanced from Rs.200/- to 1327.65p. w.e.f. 1.12.1985.

I have heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Singh holding brief of Sri Pankaj Mittal learned counsel for the landlord respondent.

Both the Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings on the valuation of the premises in occupation of tenant and have relied upon the report of the valuer submitted by the landlord. It is not disputed that the State did not lead any evidence to show that market value as indicated in the report of the valuer of the landlord was excessive or arbitrary. The Courts below on the basis of the evidence on record have held that the market value of the property of Rs.159320/- and applying the Formula laid down in the proviso u/s 21(8) of the Act fixed the rent at Rs.1327.65p. per month. The finding of the courts below are finding of fact. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to point out any error requiring interference by this Court. Accordingly the petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

It is stated by the learned Standing Counsel that pursuant to the interim order dated 12.4.1999 the petitioner has deposited the amount. However, the counsel for the landlord respondent has objected. Whatever may be the case, the petitioner will deposit the entire amount due pursuant to the order passed by the Court below within a period of three months and amount already deposited may be adjusted and details of the same furnished to the landlord respondent.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

Dt.29.11.2004

Hsc/


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.