MOHD.FAROOKH versus X1XTH A.D.J. MEERUT & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Mohd.Farookh v. X1xth A.D.J. Meerut & Others - WRIT - A No. 70 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 17844 (17 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. 70 of 2001

Mohd. Farookh (since deceased)  vs.           XIXth Addl. District Judge,

                                                                      Meerut and others.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

List has been revised. In-spite of service of notice having been published in the Newspaper neither the respondents have put in appearance nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

          Service on the respondents is deemed to be sufficient.

 The counsel for the petitioner is present. Heard him and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed JSCC Suit No. 18 of 1996 before the Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut for arrears of rent and eviction against the petitioner from the disputed accommodation.

The petitioner filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations. The trial Court vide order dated 8.3.1999 dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 8.3.1999 respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed JSCC Revision No. 97 of 1999 before the Revisional Court which was allowed vide order dated 13.12.2000, hence this writ petition.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment and order dated 13.12.2000 of the Revisional Court is illegal and unjust and it has no jurisdiction to re-assess or re-appreciate the evidence as such it was not proper for the Revisional Court to arrive at a different conclusion after reassessment of the evidence.

He further submits that the finding that the petitioner had not deposited the rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is perverse along with the finding that the petitioner is defaulter and is liable to be ejected from the disputed property because they are based on out of context mis-appreciation of the record and deserves to be quashed by this Court.

Since no counter affidavit has been filed, the averments made in the writ petition are un-  rebutted and are taken to be correct.

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.12.2000 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the court below for decision afresh.

No order as to cost.

Dated 17.10.2006

CPP/-

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.