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

2008 Supreme(All) 1793

S.U.KHAN
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
R C AND E O /IIND ADDITIONAL CITY MAGISTRATE KANPUR NAGAR – Respondent


S. U. KHAN, J.

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




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