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

2013 Supreme(All) 327

SUDHIR AGARWAL
Narendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Suraj Prasad Gupta and Another – Respondent


Advocates:
A.C. Nigam, Advocate, for the petitioner
Manish Tandon, Advocate, for the respondents.

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—

1. Heard Sri A.C. Nigam, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Manish Tandon, Advocate, for respondents.

2. The Release Application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") was filed by one Smt. Ram Katori Devi, wife of respondent no. 1 seeking release of accommodation in question which is a shop, in the tenancy of petitioner. Initially when application was filed in 1993, registered as Rent Case No. 127 of 1993, the applicant-landlord sought release thereof on the ground that her husband and one son, namely, Ramesh Chandra Gupta are unemployed, hence, she needed accommodation in question to establish her husband in business. During pendency of aforesaid application before Prescribed Authority, which remained pending for more than 16 years, the developments, caused with passage of time, took place inasmuch the applicant-landlord Ram Katori died, Sri Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Sri Dinesh Chandra Gupta, two sons of respondent no. 1, and Amit Gupta, one grand son also died. Besides, some grand sons became major, and, it resulted in substantial change in the circumstances of







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