Back
2008 Supreme(All) 1793
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.U.Khan
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Versus
R C AND E O /IIND ADDITIONAL CITY MAGISTRATE KANPUR NAGAR
Decided On : 11 August 2008
C. M. W. P. No. 4172 of 1996
An owner or co-owner cannot be considered an unauthorised occupant.
Headnote:
Unauthorised Occupant - Property Dispute - The court declared that an owner or co-owner cannot be considered an unauthorised occupant, and set aside the order declaring vacancy of the accommodation in dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Ramesh Chand, was declared an unauthorised occupant of the accommodation in dispute. However, it was revealed that the petitioner was the owner or co-owner of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being an owner or co-owner, could not be considered an unauthorised occupant. The court set aside the order declaring vacancy and declared that there was no vacancy.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as an owner or co-owner, could be deemed an unauthorised occupant of the property in dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal principle that an owner or co-owner cannot be considered an unauthorised occupant.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order declaring vacancy was set aside, with the declaration that there was no vacancy.
List revised. No one appears for the respondent Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The only contesting respondent No. 2 Om Prakash is real uncle of the petitioner. Devideen was father of Om Prakash and grandfather of Ramesh Chand petitioner. Vacancy of the accommodation in dispute has been declared on the ground that petitioner was unauthorised occupant. An owner or co-owner can never be unauthorised occupant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that some other litigation was also going on in between the petitioner and his uncle respondent No. 2 and in the said litigation compromise has been arrived at and it has been agreed that property in dispute will remain with the peti tioner. That compromise has been arrived at in O. S. No. 519 of 1993. Date of fil ing of compromise application and date of order passed in the suit deciding the same on the basis of compromise application is not legible. Photostat copy of order written in very bad handwriting has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner shall be careful in future.
3. Accordingly, in view of the above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order declaring vacancy dated 9. 1. 1996 passed by R. C. & E. O. /a. C. M. (2), Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 25 of 1995 is set aside. It is declared that there is no vacancy.
Petition Allowed.
.
