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

1996 Supreme(All) 347

R.A.SHARMA, B.S.CHAUHAN
Shiv Dev Raj – Appellant
Versus
Addl D J Dehradun – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
B.D. Agarwal, Dilip Gupta, K.K.Roy, K.L.Grover, L.P.Naithani, P.K.Madhyan, Ravi Kiran Jain,

Judgment :

R. A. Sharma, J.

1. In view of the conflicting decisions rendered by the learned Single Judges regarding the ambit and scope of Rule 16 (2) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a learned Single Judge has referred the matter to the larger Bench for resolving the conflict. Hon'ble the Chief Justice has accordingly placed this matter before us.

2. SECTION 21 of the Act provides for release of a building under occupation of a tenant. Sub-section (1) (a) of the said SECTION, which is reproduced below, empowers the prescribed authority, on the application of the landlord, to order eviction of a tenant from the building under his tenancy on the ground that it is bona fide required by the landlord: "21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.- (1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists namely : (a) that the building is bonafide required either in its existing fo












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