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


M/S Abhinandan Developers v. U.P. State Electricity Board And Another - WRIT - A No. 51918 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16338 (19 September 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

The petitioner has come up in this writ petition against impugned order dated 25.8.2006 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/District Magistrate, Bareilly.  By the impugned order, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has directed the case to be listed on 21.9.2006 (wrongly typed as 21.9.90) for objections from the defendant.

The property in dispute in the present writ petition relates to property bearing municipal no. 221 Civil Lines, Bareilly. The petitioner purchased the disputed shop from its erstwhile owner through two registered sale deeds dated 27.8.1990.

It appears from record that U.P. State Electricity Board (for short ''respondent-Board') was tenant in the said premises. It further appears that the petitioner-landlord moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') for enhancement of rent. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 29.6.1994 determined market value of the property as Rs.12,40,580/- and fixed the rent of Rs.10,2340/- per month.

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.6.1994, the respondent-Board preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 94 of 1994. Cross appeal no. 95 of 1994 was also preferred by the landlord. Both the appeals were clubbed together and decided in terms of judgment and order dated 2.11.1998 dismissing the appeals and affirming the order dated 29.6.1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority.

It further appears from record that aggrieved by order dated 2.11.1998. the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 41563 of 1998 in which notices were directed to be issued to the respondents and ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution.

Counsel for the petitioner states that an application for restoration has been moved before the Court in the aforesaid writ petition but no orders have been passed in the restoration application.

It is contended that subsequent to the dismissal of appeal in terms of judgment and order dated 2.11.1998, the petitioner had sought the recovery of amount in terms of order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 29.6.1994. The application for recovery of amount has been registered as Case no. 40 of 2000 but the Court below is proceeding in very leisurely manner and is not deciding the case, which is causing irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner.

Having heard counsel for the petitioner, at length, and after perusal of record, I find that the Court below has merely fixed date for filing objection by the defendant. However, till the orders of the Courts below is set aside by the competent Court or they are modified, the petitioner is entitled to recover the decretal amount. The tenant cannot use and occupy the disputed accommodation without payment of rent.

Counsel for the petitioner informed this Court that in the year 2000, the respondent-Board has vacated the building.

In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with an interlocutory order. However,  it is expedient in the interest of justice that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer may decide the case within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and order before it by the petitioner.  Certified copy of this judgment and order shall be produced before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the petitioner within two weeks from today.  Any amount found due against the respondent-Board shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and paid to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Dated 19.9.2006



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.