Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SHAILI versus ANIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Shaili v. Anil Kumar And Another - WRIT - A No. 1962 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14236 (23 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.1962 of 2006

Smt.Shaili  

Vs.

Anil Kumar   and another

Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.

Heard Sri S.K.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitoner and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

This petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2005 passed in Rent Control Revision No.15 of 2004 Anil Kumar Vs. Smt.Shaili, by Addl.District Judge/ Special Judge, Jhansi.  By means of the aforesaid order, the revisional court has proceeded to quash the order dated 13.2.2004 whereby the Prescribed Authority had rejected the recall application filed by respondent no.1 and rejected his objection and proceeded to pass release order in favour of the petitioner. The revisional court has  allowed the application of respondent no.1 for recalling the order dated 10.12.2003 whereby the Prescribed Authority has declared the vacancy in the accommodation in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in absence of any objection  being filed by respondent no.1 before the Prescribed Authority inspite of various dates fixed for the purpose and inspite of the fact that cost was imposed on the respondent no.1 he did not file any objection hence there was no option before the Prescribed Authority to proceed and to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law on the averments made therein. This argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is contested by learned counsel for the respondent no.1 who submits that on 10.12.2003 the objection was filed by the respondent no.1 but the Prescribed Authority did not consider the same and has held that the objection was filed after the

-2-

order of vacancy had been passed.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has in reply submitted that in case the objection dated 10.12.2003 has been filed on the same date a copy of the same should have been  handed over to the petitioner or his counsel.

The revisional court  has recorded its finding to the effect that the objection appears to have been filed on 10.12.2003 but the Prescribed Authority due to undue pressure has brought on record that the objection was filed on 11.12.2003 after passing of order declaring the vacancy.

During course of arguments learned counsel for the parties have agreed, keeping in mind the urgency of the need of the petitioner and that final decision may be taken within a fixed period,  that  the Prescribed Authority may be directed to decide the application on its merits, since the objection filed by respondent no.1 is now  on record. As such the observation of the revisional court that the  entire proceedings require to be set aside is  quashed and it is directed that the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Jhansi may proceed  to decide afresh the application dated 6.8.2003 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law after taking into consideration the objection dated 10.12.2003 filed by respondent no.1. Since the matter is of the year 2003 the Rent Control & Eviction Officer shall ensure that parties are heard and it  is decided within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. It is expected that both the parties will not take unnecessary adjournment and co-operate with the proceedings.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order is passed as to costs.

23.8.06

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.