R.H.ZAIDI
OM PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHARANPUR – Respondent
( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
( 2 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 5. 3. 1999, whereby the revision filed by the contesting respondents was allowed by the revisional court and the suit for ejectment was decreed.
( 3 ) IT appears that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent on the ground of default and material alteration diminishing the value of the building in question. The suit was contested by the defendants-petitioners, who filed their written statements controverting the facts stated in the plaint and pleading that they were not the defaulters nor they have made any material alteration which diminished the value of the building. It was also pleaded that they were entitled to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), (for short the act ). Several other pleas were also
Malini Ayappa Naicker v. Seth Manghraj Udhavdas
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur
State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.
REFERRED TO : Kailash Chandra v. III Addl. District Judge and another
Hari Shanker and others v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chaudhary
Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court
State of Kerala v. K.M.C. Abdulla and Company
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.