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


Sita Ram Dubey & Another v. Rent Control And Eviction Officer And Others - WRIT - A No. 17507 of 1992 [2006] RD-AH 13257 (8 August 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.25

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17507 of 1992

Sita Ram Dubey and another


Rent Control and Eviction Officer and others

Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.

Heard Sri A.N.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners.

List has been revised. None appears on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3.

By means of this writ petition  the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated  7.5.1992 passed by Rent Control & Eviction Officer whereby the premises in question has been declared vacant. A true copy of the order has been filed as annexure-10 to the writ petition.

The only argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that any order declaring vacancy should contain reasons  as provided u/s 34(7) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a decision of this court in the case of Nand Kishore Vs. Rent Control & Eviction Officer reported in 1990(1) ARC 431 and submits that the impugned order  containing no reason is liable to be set aside and the case be remanded back to the authority concerned for re-consideration of the matter.


In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the  landlord (respondent no.3) it has been stated that the petitioners were given the accommodation in question to live as guest after the same was vacated by its earlier incumbent and the same was got allotted by  petitioner no.1 in the year 1982. It has been stated that  the petitioner no.1 thereafter handed over the premises  to petitioner no.2 without any allotment order and consequently proceeding u/s 12 of the Act was started which resulted into passing of  the impugned order declaring the vacancy.

Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order it is quite apparent that the order contains no reasons whatsoever and has been passed exparte in the absence of the petitioner.

For the aforesaid reasons, the order can not be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.1 to decide the application u/s 12 of the Act filed by the landlord in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands allowed as above. No order is passed 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.