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

2006 Supreme(All) 164

S.U.KHAN
KAFEEL AHMAD – Appellant
Versus
SATVINDRA KAUR – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Shahid Masud for the Petitioner; Vinod Kumar Rai for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Honble S.U. Khan, J.—This is tenant’s writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlady-respondent against him on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 60 of 1997. Property in dispute is a shop which was purchased by landlady’s father-in-law in her name on 17-12-1991. Petitioner is tenant of the said shop since before its purchase by landlady-respondent. Rent of the shop in dispute is Rs. 93.43 p. Landlady in her release application asserted that the shop was required for her husband Jagmohan Singh. It was further stated that previously Jagmohan Singh was doing business along with his father and brothers in the shop of his father, however, after the death of Asha Singh, her father-in-law on 30-4-1992, there was dispute among brothers and Jagmohan was separated from the shop in dispute.

2. Prescribed authority through judgment and order dated 10-9-1999 dismissed the release application. Prescribed Authority held that the alleged notice of six months as required by first proviso to Section 21 was not served upon the tenant. Prescribed Authority also held that need was not bonafide, as

















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