Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA versus D.J. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shri Anil Kumar Gupta v. D.J. & Others - WRIT - A No. 40935 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 5989 (18 November 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. 40935 of 1997

Sri Anil Kumar Gupta Versus The District Judge, Aligarh and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Heard Sri Atul Dayal learned counsel for the landlord petitioner and Sri M.K.Gupta learned counsel for the tenant respondent.

Landlord petitioner filed SCC suit No. 5 of 1981 against tenant respondent No. 2 Shailendra Kumar Varshney. Rajendra and Ramesh Chandra were also impleaded as alleged sub tenants.  Initially suit was dismissed by JSCC, Aligarh. Through order dated 5.11.1992 revision was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial court. Thereafter trial court through judgment and decree dated 1.8.1997 decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The suit for eviction was decreed only on the ground of default. Against the said judgment and decree, tenant respondent No. 2 Shailendra Kumar Varshney filed SCC Revision No. 58 of 1997. District Judge, Aligarh on 26.9.1997, allowed the revision, set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit of the landlord petitioner. This writ petition is directed against the said judgment and order of the revisional court.

The revisional court in view of full bench authority of this court reported in Nootan Kumar Vs. A.D.J 1993(2) ARC 204, held that as building had been let out without allotment order after July 1976 hence contract of tenancy was invalid and no suit for eviction could be filed. The said full bench authority of this court has been overruled by the Supreme Court in Nootan Kumar Versus A.D.J AIR 2002 SC 3456 and the Supreme Court has held that such an agreement of tenancy may not be binding upon the Rent Control Authorities however it is perfectly binding upon the parties i.e. landlord and the tenant and suit of the landlord for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in section 20(2) of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 is quite maintainable.

Accordingly writ petition is allowed.

Judgment and order passed by the revisional court dated 26.9.1997 is set-aside. The revision is remanded to the District Judge, Aligarh for decision afresh. The District Judge, Aligarh may either himself decide the revision or transfer it to any other A.D.J . It is directed that the revision must be decided very expeditiously preferably by 31.5.2006.

Both the parties are directed to appear before the District Judge Aligarh on 5.12.2005 alongwith certified copy of this judgment. Stay order which was passed by the revisional court during pendency of the revision is revived. Landlord is at liberty to apply before the revisional court for imposition of condition of payment of reasonable amount alongwith stay order in view of the Supreme Court authority reported in Atma Ram Properties Vs. Federal Motors 2005 (1) SCC 705.

Waqar

18.11.2005


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.