Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.KUMAR versus D.J.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


A.Kumar v. D.J. - WRIT - A No. 40297 of 1993 [2006] RD-AH 10148 (24 May 2006)


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. 28


Ajai Kumar & anr.


IInd  Additional  District Judge Allahabad & anr..

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard  learned counsel of the petitioners and Sri Pankaj Srivastava holding brief of Sri Satish Chaturvedi appearing for contesting respondent no.2.

The facts are that the petitioners/landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act No. XIII of 1972 for the release of the 1st floor of the house in dispute. The Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 9.7.1991 allowed the application and the tenanted accommodation was released in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved tenant/respondent no. 2 filed an appeal before the appellate authority. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioners/landlord   brought   on record  the facts that  tenant has purchased  land from Ganpati Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited in Mauja Dadi Pargna  Arail Tehsil Karchhana District Allahabad  and  constructed a house thereon and  has shifted therein. The appellate authority without  considering the fact that tenant has already  constructed  house and  has shifted therein, allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved petitioners/landlord approached this court by instant writ petition.

During the course of argument Sri Pankaj Srivastava holding brief of Sri Satish  Chaturvedi appearing for the tenant/respondent no.2 made a statement that his client has already vacated the premised in dispute and handed over the possession to the landlord/petitioners.

The facts that tenant has constructed  his own house and shifted therein has been illegally ignored by the appellate authority. In view of the aforesaid fact the release application filed by the petitioners/landlord was liable to be allowed. However, the appellate court wrongly and   illegally  dismissed the same.

Considering the facts that tenant has constructed his own residential house and  in view of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for him that he has already vacated and handed over the possession of the disputed accommodation to the landlord/ petitioners, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

The  impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 28.9.1993 stands quashed and that of the  Prescribed Authority stands affirmed. The release application filed by the petitioners/landlord is allowed.

The writ petition stands allowed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.



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.