Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S. HUSSAIN versus R.C.E.O.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S. Hussain v. R.C.E.O. - WRIT - A No. 22720 of 1994 [2006] RD-AH 13785 (19 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.25

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22720 of 1994

Sarfaraz Hussain

Vs.

Rent Control & Eviction Officer and another

Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.

Heard  learned counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of notice dated 16.11.1994, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.2.

The facts of the case are that the accommodation in dispute being flat no.6 Ali Manjil, Civil Lines, Moradabad belongs to the petitioner and the tenant Sri Siddiqui was in occupation of the same. The petitioner had filed an application for release of the accommodation u/s 16(1)(a) of U.P.Act No.XIII of 1972 which was rejected  by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer who directed  to proceed to declare the vacancy.  However, the petitioner filed an appeal u/s 18 of the Act being appeal no.253 of 1976 which was allowed by the Addl.District Judge, Moradabad. It is stated that  inspite of aforesaid facts the respondent no.2 had filed an application for allotment  of the premises in his favour. The petitioner had filed his objection dated 6.6.1994 and brought  the fact of release of accommodation in his favour to the notice of the Rent Control & Eviction  Officer. Upon the said application, a report was called for from the Rent Control Inspector which was submitted on 10.6.1994.  Inspite of aforesaid facts a vacancy has been declared by the impugned order on the same day i.e. 10.6.1994 without considering the objection of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that  the impugned order is illegal and has been passed at the instance of respondent no.2 who was a sitting MLA and exercised influence over the respondent no.1. No counter affidavit has been filed. The averments made in the

-2-

affidavit with respect to  release of the accommodation in favour of the petitioner by the appellate  court stands uncontroverted.  In view of aforesaid facts, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 10.6.1994 is quashed.

The writ petition stands allowed.  No order is passed as to costs.

19.8.06

Gc.


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.