Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ISRAT ALI versus D.J., HATHRAS AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Israt Ali v. D.J., Hathras And Others - WRIT - A No. 56723 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17619 (12 October 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. 7                                                        

         Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56723 of 2006

Israt Ali                       versus        District Judge, Hathras and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.3- landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(A) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the disputed shop situate at Nagla Lala Sikandrarau, Hathras under the tenancy of the petitioner.  

The petitioner-tenant filed his written statement denying the allegations contained in the aforesaid release application.

The Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 30.1.2006 allowed the release application directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1200/- as compensation to the landlord and handover the possession of the disputed shop to him.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.1.2006 the petitioner went up in appeal.

During the pendency of the appeal, respondent no.3-landlord filed an application 9Ga to the effect that fifty percent of the prevailing rent of the disputed shop in the market be enhanced in case the eviction of the petitioner is stayed by the appellate Court. The appellate Court vide order dated 22.8.2006 stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 30.1.2006 of the trial Court provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.500/- as damages for use and occupation of the disputed shop by 7th day of each succeeding month. It was also directed that the petitioner-tenant shall pay arrears of rent of the disputed shop within a period of month from the date of the order. In case the aforesaid order is not complied with, the stay order shall stand automatically rejected. The appellate Court fixed 23.9.2006 for hearing.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 22.8.2006 of the appellate Court, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

       The counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court has committed manifest error of law in relying upon the receipts of the month of February, 2006 of nearby shops inasmuch as while determining the tenancy by means of notice dated 11.12.2003 respondent no.3 has mentioned a sum of Rs.500/- as the damages per month in case the disputed is not vacated.

He further submits that the landlord has let out nearby shop to one Sri Mohd. Fareed son of Sri Gaffar and Mohd. Shabuddin on monthly rent of Rs.250/- and the appellate Court has committed an error by enhancing the rent to Rs.1,000/- per month of the disputed shop under the tenancy of the petitioner and the receipts filed by respondent no.3-landlord are forged, fabricated and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner for filing his counter affidavit against the affidavit filed by respondent no.3.

He also submits that the appellate Court has wrongly held that the petitioner has denied to file any paper against the paper filed by the landlord and findings of the appellate Court are illegal, perverse, arbitrary, malafide and without jurisdiction and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the impugned order of the appellate Court dated 22.8.2006 is liable to be quashed.

The counsel for the respondents submits that the landlord has filed objection 9Ga-2 before the court below interalia that the shops situated nearby the disputed shop were let out on monthly rent of Rs.1500/- and that Rs. 1,000/- per month as damages would be appropriate for the disputed shop. He also submits that the receipts filed by the respondents are not forged and fabricated and the petitioner-tenant has not filed any rejoinder to the affidavit filed by respondents. He further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.8.2006 of the appellate Court, hence no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The relevant portion of the findings of the appellate Court is as under:-

            "eSaus leLr Ik=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk izR;FkhZ }kjk vkl ikl dh nqdkuksa ds laca/k esa Qjojh 2006 dh jlhnsa nkf[ky gS] dk Hkh voyksdu fd;k A

 leLr rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, rFkk izR;FkhZ ds 'kiFk Ik= 10x2 esa fn, x;s dFkuksa ds vkyskd esa ftudk dksbZ dkm.Vj 'kiFk Ik= nkf[ky ugaha gS ] fookfnr nqdku dk orZeku gtkZ bLrseky dh nj 1000@& #Ik;s ekfld U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gS vkSj mldk 50 izfr'kr ;kfu fd 500@& #Ik;s izfrekg dh nj ls mDr /kujkf'k vihy dh frfFk ls vHkh rd vkSj vkxs izR;sd ekg dh 7 rkjh[k dks tek djus dh 'krZ mfpr izrhr gksrk gS A ^^

          From perusal of the aforesaid findings of the appellate Court it is clear that the appellate Court after going through the documents and evidence of the parties has enhanced the rent of the disputed shop under the tenancy of the petitioner as it has not been disputed by him that rent of the disputed shop is also the same. There are concurrent findings of facts of the court below and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the appellate Court, hence no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

  For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.

Dated 12.10.2006

CPP/-

             

 

   Court no. 7                                                        

         Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56723 of 2006

Israt Ali                       versus        District Judge, Hathras and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.3- landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(A) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the disputed shop situate at Nagla Lala Sikandrarau, Hathras under the tenancy of the petitioner.  

The petitioner-tenant filed his written statement denying the allegations contained in the aforesaid release application.

The Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 30.1.2006 allowed the release application directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1200/- as compensation to the landlord and handover the possession of the disputed shop to him.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.1.2006 the petitioner went up in appeal.

During the pendency of the appeal, respondent no.3-landlord filed an application 9Ga to the effect that fifty percent of the prevailing rent of the disputed shop in the market be enhanced in case the eviction of the petitioner is stayed by the appellate Court. The appellate Court vide order dated 22.8.2006 stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 30.1.2006 of the trial Court provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.500/- as damages for use and occupation of the disputed shop by 7th day of each succeeding month. It was also directed that the petitioner-tenant shall pay arrears of rent of the disputed shop within a period of month from the date of the order. In case the aforesaid order is not complied with, the stay order shall stand automatically rejected. The appellate Court fixed 23.9.2006 for hearing.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 22.8.2006 of the appellate Court, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

       The counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court has committed manifest error of law in relying upon the receipts of the month of February, 2006 of nearby shops inasmuch as while determining the tenancy by means of notice dated 11.12.2003 respondent no.3 has mentioned a sum of Rs.500/- as the damages per month in case the disputed is not vacated.

He further submits that the landlord has let out nearby shop to one Sri Mohd. Fareed son of Sri Gaffar and Mohd. Shabuddin on monthly rent of Rs.250/- and the appellate Court has committed an error by enhancing the rent to Rs.1,000/- per month of the disputed shop under the tenancy of the petitioner and the receipts filed by respondent no.3-landlord are forged, fabricated and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner for filing his counter affidavit against the affidavit filed by respondent no.3.

He also submits that the appellate Court has wrongly held that the petitioner has denied to file any paper against the paper filed by the landlord and findings of the appellate Court are illegal, perverse, arbitrary, malafide and without jurisdiction and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the impugned order of the appellate Court dated 22.8.2006 is liable to be quashed.

The counsel for the respondents submits that the landlord has filed objection 9Ga-2 before the court below interalia that the shops situated nearby the disputed shop were let out on monthly rent of Rs.1500/- and that Rs. 1,000/- per month as damages would be appropriate for the disputed shop. He also submits that the receipts filed by the respondents are not forged and fabricated and the petitioner-tenant has not filed any rejoinder to the affidavit filed by respondents. He further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.8.2006 of the appellate Court, hence no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The relevant portion of the findings of the appellate Court is as under:-

            "eSaus leLr Ik=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk izR;FkhZ }kjk vkl ikl dh nqdkuksa ds laca/k esa Qjojh 2006 dh jlhnsa nkf[ky gS] dk Hkh voyksdu fd;k A

 leLr rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, rFkk izR;FkhZ ds 'kiFk Ik= 10x2 esa fn, x;s dFkuksa ds vkyskd esa ftudk dksbZ dkm.Vj 'kiFk Ik= nkf[ky ugaha gS ] fookfnr nqdku dk orZeku gtkZ bLrseky dh nj 1000@& #Ik;s ekfld U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gS vkSj mldk 50 izfr'kr ;kfu fd 500@& #Ik;s izfrekg dh nj ls mDr /kujkf'k vihy dh frfFk ls vHkh rd vkSj vkxs izR;sd ekg dh 7 rkjh[k dks tek djus dh 'krZ mfpr izrhr gksrk gS A ^^

          From perusal of the aforesaid findings of the appellate Court it is clear that the appellate Court after going through the documents and evidence of the parties has enhanced the rent of the disputed shop under the tenancy of the petitioner as it has not been disputed by him that rent of the disputed shop is also the same. There are concurrent findings of facts of the court below and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the appellate Court, hence no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

  For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.

Dated 12.10.2006

CPP/-

             

 


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.