Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABDUL HAQ versus D.J., & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Abdul Haq v. D.J., & Others - WRIT - A No. 38158 of 2000 [2005] RD-AH 7913 (21 December 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.2420 of 1988

Jai Pal Singh Versus VIII Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr and others.

And

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38158 of 2000

Abdul Haque Versus District Judge, Bulandshahr and others

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

List revised. Learned counsel for landlord is present. No one is present for the tenant.

It is admitted that in another proceeding under section 21 of U.P Act No.13 of 1972, eviction order was passed and in pursuance thereof tenant vacated the building in dispute and the possession is now with the landlord Abdul Haque.

First writ petition filed by tenant Jai Pal Singh against landlord Abdul Haque arises out of rent fixation proceedings. Building in dispute which according to the learned counsel is a big residential building situate in front of Bulandshahr Civil Court was allotted to Jai Pal Singh on 30.1.1982. R.C & E.O fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. VII Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr in R.C Appeal No. 31 of 1986, enhanced the rent to Rs. 400/- per month. The said order of appellate court is under challenge in the first writ petition.

Second writ petition arises out of against order-dated 8.2.2000 passed by JSCC, Bulandshahr in SCC Suit No. 12 of 1982. The said suit was filed by landlord against tenant for eviction on the ground of default. The trial court through the said order held that proceedings of the suit should continue as amount was not deposited by the tenant within the time fixed by the High Court (in first writ petition). Against the said order tenant filed SCC Revision No. 13 of 2000. District Judge, Bulandshahr through order-dated 11.5.2000, allowed the revision and stayed the proceeding of the suit. The said order of District Judge has been challenged by landlord through second writ petition.

As possession has already been taken by the landlord hence relief of eviction in the suit has become infructuous.

Accordingly both the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that whatever amount tenant has deposited in SCC Suit No. 12 of 1982 shall be paid to the landlord. Tenant shall not be liable to pay any other amount towards rent. The suit shall be decided in these terms.

Waqar

21.12.2005


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.