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


Ramesh Kumar Gupta @ Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. Rent Control & Eviction Officer & Others - WRIT - A No. 41386 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 109 (2 January 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).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard S/Sri S.K.Srivastava, C.B. Singh counsels for the petitioner and Sri Kaushal Kishore Mishra counsel for the respondents.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that under the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'), no revision or appeal lies before any authority or Court against the order passed by the Civil Court u/S. 30(1) of the Act.  Thus, the revision was not maintainable and the order of the revisional Court entertaining the revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is wholly without jurisdiction.  He relied upon the decision of this Court in Anwar Ali v. Additional District Judge, Moradabad and others 2002(2) ARC-562 wherein it has been held that no appeal or revision lay against the order passed by the Munsif u/S. 30(1) of the Act and submitted that in view thereof, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Counsel for the respondents has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Chatur Mohan and others v. Ram Behari Dixit-1964 A.L.J-256.  This Full Bench decision is under the provisions of the old Act and there is no pari materia provision under the old Act like Section 30(1).  

This writ petition is pre-mature in view of decision rendered by this court in Shyam Sundar Agarwal V. Smt. Gyanwati Devi and another (2005(2) ARC-479 wherein relying upon a decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Achal Misra V. Rama Shankar Singh and others-(2005) 1 ARC-877, the case was dismissed as pre-mature.

After hearing the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner may challenge the order impugned in the proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in regular proceedings. It appears that the instant writ petition has been filed with the sole object to delay the proceedings.  

According the writ petition is dismissed.  The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.1000/- with the Registrar General of this court under the head ''Fine' for rushing to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which amounts to hamper dispensation of justice and causing undue delay in decision of dispute requiring findings of facts which could very well have been decided by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.  The Courts/authorities below shall entertain any application/petition after petitioner produces cash receipt of deposit of the aforesaid amount before the Registrar General of this Court.

Dated 2nd August, 2006



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.