SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(SC) 351

S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, V.R.KRISHNA IYER, P.N.BHAGWATI
Purushottam Das – Appellant
Versus
VIII Additional Distt. And Sessions Judge, Allahabad – Respondent


Judgment

BHAGWATI, J.- The appellant and respondents Nos. 4 to 10 are the tenants in respect of certain premises situated in Allahabad. Respondent No. 3 who is the landlord, filed an application for eviction of the appellant and Respondents Nos. 4 to 10 from the premises in their occupation on grounds specified in Cls. (a) and (b) of S. 21, sub-s (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Cl. (a) was also based on Expln. (iv) to Section 21 of the Act. The Prescribed Authority held that both the grounds were made out by Respondent No. 3 and the case also fell within Explanation (iv) and it accordingly passed an order of eviction against the Appellants and Respondents Nos. 4 to 10. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of eviction was dismissed by the learned District Judge. The Appellant thereupon filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Allahabad under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Two questions in the main were raised before the High Court: one was that the Explan. (iv) was inapplicable since the terms of that Explanation were not satisfied; a





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top