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

1954 Supreme(All) 24

V.BHARGAVA
Ram Chander – Appellant
Versus
Mohan Lal Tewari – Respondent


Advocates:
D. Sanyal, for Applicant; B.L. Gupta, for Opposite Party; Hari Swarup holding the brief of the Standing Counsel, for the State.

ORDER :- By this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, opposite party No. 3, the District Magistrate, Kanpur, opposite party No. 4, and the State of Uttar Pradesh, opposite party No. 5, not to give effect to the allotment order dated 12-7-1950, passed by opposite party No. 3. Opposite party No. 1, Mohan Lal Tiwari is the person in whose favour the allotment order was passed and opposite party No. 2, Panna Lal is the person who, according to the petitioner, is occupying the accommodation allotted by this order and whom the petitioner wants to retain as occupant of that accommodation.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the accommodation. The fact that the petitioner is the owner of the accommodation is not contested by the opposite parties. The only opposite party who filed a counter-affidavit is opposite party No. 1 Mohan Lal Tewari. No counter-affidavits have been filed by any of the other four opposite parties.

2. When this petition came up for hearing before me, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to argue first one point which was mere or less











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