Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Manoj Kumar And Others v. Ist A.D.J. And Others - WRIT - A No. 14355 of 1986 [2005] RD-AH 1794 (29 July 2005)


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).


Court No. 22

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14355 of 1986

Manoj Kumar and others  Vs.  Ist A.D.J. Bulandshahr and  others


Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

This petition has been filed by three tenants for quashing the judgment and order dated 18.05.1985 passed by the Trial Court in three different cases viz 47/82, 44/82 and 50/82 and the order dated 22.7.1986 passed by revisional Court in three SCC Revisions viz. 68/85, 77/85 and 70/85 whereby the  suit of the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction has been decreed and the revision against the same dismissed.

Heard Sri B.D. Madhyan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared for the respondent even when the matter was called out in the revised list.

The point urged by the counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the  construction of the building in question.  Both the Courts below have recorded specific  findings that the construction were completed on 15.6.1972 and the building was let out for the first time on 01.11.1972 and therefore the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would become applicable from 1.11.1982 and therefore, the entire amount had to be deposited by 1.12.1982 when one month expired after  01.11.1982 or at the most by  24.12.1982 i.e. one month from the knowledge of the suit. The deposits in the present case were made on 16.2.1983 and therefore, no benefit could be given to the tenants with regard to deposit made under section 39 of the Act.

In view of the concurrent finding recorded by the court below based on appreciation of evidence and such findings being findings of fact, this Court can  not interfere with them in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The petition being concluded by findings of fact, is liable to be dismissed.

It is accordingly dismissed.

The counsel for the petitioner has prayed that some time may be allowed to vacate the premises. The Counsel for the respondent  is not present.  Upon consideration of facts and the long occupancy of the petitioner six months  time is allowed to the petitioner to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the premises in dispute to the landlords (respondents 3 and 4) subject to the condition that the undertaking incorporating the conditions as stated below is filed before the Trial Court as directed.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that undertaking shall be filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court on the terms and conditions imposed by this Court:-

1.     The tenant-petitioner shall file before the Trial Court, on or before 01.09.2005 application along with his affidavit giving an unconditional undertaking to comply with all the conditions mentioned hereinafter:

2.     Petitioner-tenant shall not be evicted from the accommodation in his tenancy up to 31.01.2006. Tenant-petitioner, his representative/assignee, etc. claiming through him or otherwise, if any, shall vacate without objection and peacefully deliver vacant possession of the accommodation in question on or before 31.01.2006 to the landlord or landlord's nominee/representative (if any, appointed and intimated by the landlord) by giving prior advance notice and notifying to the landlord by Registered A.D. post (on his last known address or as may be disclosed in advance by the landlord in writing before the concerned Trial Court) time and date on which Landlord is to take possession from the tenant.

3.      Petitioner shall on or before 01.10.2005 deposit entire amount due towards rent etc. up to date i.e. entire arrears of the past, if any, as well as the rent for the period ending on 31.01.2006.

4.      Petitioner and everyone claiming under him undertake not to ''change' or ''damage' or transfer/alienate/assign in any manner, the accommodation in question.

5.   In case tenant-petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions/or direction/s contained in this order, landlord shall be entitled to evict the tenant-petitioner forthwith from the accommodation in question by seeking police force through concerned Court.

6.      If there is violation of the undertaking of any one or more of the conditions contained in this order, the defaulting party shall pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as damages to the other party besides rendering himself/herself liable to be prosecuted for committing grossest contempt of the Court.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.