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

2008 Supreme(All) 2216

S.U.KHAN
VINAY JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
VIth ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BAREILLY – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
A.K. Goyal for the Petitioners; B.N. Agrawal, Sanjay Agarwal, S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is tenants’ writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No. 2 Sanjeev Kumar on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. Property in dispute is a house rent of which is Rs. 60/- per month. Release application was registered as P.A. case No. 40 of 1997. Prescribed Authority/Addl. J.S.C.C. Bareilly through judgment and order dated 15.9.2000 dismissed the release application. Against the said judgment and order landlord respondent No. 2 filed R.C. Appeal No.18 of 2000. A.D.J. Court No. 6, Bareilly through judgment and order dated 7.5.2002 allowed the appeal set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlord, hence this writ petition by the tenant.

3. Landlord pleaded that in family partition in the year 1982 he got four houses i.e. house No. 514-B, 469-B, 470-A(disputed one) and western portion of 470-G. It was further pleaded that house No.514-B was sold by the landlord in the year 1986. Nothing has been pointed out r



























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