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

1972 Supreme(All) 280

SATISHCHANDRA, P.N.BAKSHI
Ravindra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Ram Chand Kohli – Respondent


Advocates:
K.C. Agarwal, for Appellant; A.D. Prabhakar, Standing Counsel, for Respondents.

Judgement

SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- It appears that one Chaddha was the tenant of the shop in dispute. He abandoned it in 1966. Thereafter the respondents, namely, Ram Chand Kohli and Ganga Sagar entered into its possession under an agreement with the landlord and on payment of rent. They, however, did not obtain an order of allotment in respect of this shop from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In 1969, the appellants applied for the allotment of this shop. After hearing the respondents, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order of allotment in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a revision before the State Government which was, however, dismissed. The respondents then filed a writ petition in this Court. A learned Single Judge held that in law the accommodation could not be deemed to be vacant. There was hence no jurisdiction to pass an order of allotment. In the next place it was held that an order of allotment could validly be passed only after the respondents had been ejected from the accommodation in dispute by appropriate proceedings under Section 7-A of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to a








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