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

1992 Supreme(All) 264

G.P.MATHUR
RAJ MOHAN KRISHNA – Appellant
Versus
SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.VAHAL, Ajit Kumar

G. P. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) PARTIES have exchanged affidavits and, therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

( 2 ) DURGESH Kumar Srivastava, respondent No. 3, filed an application on 24-4-1985 against the petitioner for release of the premises bearing No. 273 (southern portion) Mumfordganj, Allahabad, which is in his occupation. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 19-11-1987. The petitioner filled an appeal against the said order which was allowed by order dated 19-12-1988 by the IInd Addl. District Judge and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority to consider the question of bona fide need afresh.

( 3 ) ONE of the pleas raised on behalf of the tenant was that Drugesh Kumar Srivastava, respondent No. 3, was not the landlord of the building and as such he had no right to file the release application. The learned IInd Additional District Judge decided this question against the petitioner and held that respondent No. 3 was the landlord of the building in dispute. It is for quashing of this part of the appellate order that the present writ petition has been filed.

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel f











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