Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHIRENDRA KUMAR SAXENA versus PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/SMALL CAUSE COURT AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dhirendra Kumar Saxena v. Prescribed Authority/small Cause Court And Others - WRIT - A No. 61931 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3560 (26 September 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.61931 of 2005

Dhirendra Kumar Saxena  Vs.  Prescribed Authority and others

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

Petitioner is a tenant against whom landlords-respondents have filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 which is pending in the form of P.A. Case No.33 of 2004 - Raj Bahadur Singh and another Vs. Dhirendra Kumar Saxena on the file of Prescribed Authority/JSCC, Moradabad.  Tenant-petitioner has filed reply, counter affidavit as well as additional counter affidavit and the case is fixed for arguments.  After filing of written statement, counter affidavit, additional counter affidavit and other affidavits, the tenant filed an application that release proceedings must be dropped as on the release application signatures of applicants are not there.  Tenant also filed application for bringing on record certain documents in the form of notice and money order coupon etc.  Some more prayers were also made.  The Prescribed Authority rejected all the applicants by impugned order dated 29.7.2005 hence this writ petition.

In respect of money order coupon etc Prescribed Authority rightly held that question of rate of rent or payment of rent is not at all relevant for the purposes of release application under Section 21 of the Act.  Similar copy of some judgment which was sought to be adduced by the tenant was refused to be taken on record by the impugned order on the ground that in the said judgment landlords had been restrained from forcibly evicting the tenant hence it was irrelevant.

In my opinion Trial court/Prescribed authority have rightly rejected all the applications of the tenant, which were aimed at delaying the proceedings.  

There is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.  

20.9.2005

RS/-


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.