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

1994 Supreme(All) 224

B.L.YADAV
NATTHU – Appellant
Versus
AMAR NATH AGARWAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.C.Mukharji, G.KALUANI, M.G.MISHRA, P.L.MISHRA, S.C.GUPTA

B. L. YADAY, J.


( 1 ) THE ambit, co nstruction and effect of fourth proviso of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, Act 13 of 1972 (The Act for short) read with R. 16 (2) (a) of the Rules framed under the Act, in granting or refusing the application for release under S. 21 (1) (a) of the Act, is one of the questions that falls for determination in the present petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution by the tenant against whom the prescribed authority has allowed the application for release and the Appellate Court has affirmed that order. The prayer is that these impugned orders be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

( 2 ) PORTRAYAL of the essential facts are these. The respondent No. 1 is the landlord of a shop 38 x 11 boundaries indicated in para 1 of the application of the respondent No. 1 situate in Mohalla Railway Ganj, Hardoi and the petitioner is tenant and runs a cycle repairing shop. As the landlord was employed in Military Engineering Service, he wants to set up his own business of refrigerator after retirement on 5-11-1985. He moved application under S. 21 (1) (a) of the Act (Annexure- 1) for release as his needs

































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