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

1999 Supreme(All) 1024

YATINDRA SINGH
MUNICIPAL BOARD, CHUNAR – Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL S. D. O. , SADAR, MIRZAPUR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
RAKESH BAHADUR, Sankatha Rai, V.C.MISHRA

YATINDRA SINGH, J.


( 1 ) IS the U. P. Tenancy Act. 1939 (the Tenancy Act for short), a law relating to land tenure within the meaning of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 [the Act for short)? Is land held by a tenure holder under the Tenancy Act. premises within the meaning of the Act? These questions arise for determination in these four writ petitions. This is how they arise. FACTS

( 2 ) THE property in dispute is Nazul property. The concerned District Magistrate had leased it out in favour of the predecessor-in -interest of the contesting respondents. The notified area committee had renewed it for a term. Subsequently, the lessees transferred the property in favour of the contesting respondents. After expiry of the period of the leases, a notice was issued to the contesting respondents under the Act for their eviction in proceedings initiated by the Municipal board, Chunar. Mirzapur (The Board for short ). It is not disputed that now the Board manages the property. The Courts below have dismissed the proceedings on the ground that property in dispute is not premises under the Act. Hence these writ petitions. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

( 3 ) I h












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