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

2013 Supreme(All) 2605

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vikram Nath, J.
Jummi and others -Appellant
Versus
Vth Additional District Judge, Agra and others. -Respondent
Writ A No. 13880 of 1991
Decided On : 14-11-2013

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:- Kc Grover,Ramesh Singh
For the Respondent:- Sc,G.C. Bhattacharya, S.S. Shukla

The court upheld the findings of the lower authorities based on material evidence and declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

Headnote:

Delay Condonation - Restoration of Writ Petition - The court allowed the delay condonation application and restored the writ petition assailing the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Agra in Rent Control Appeal No.8 of 1982.

Fact of the Case:

The petition was filed to challenge the judgment and order passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Agra in Rent Control Appeal No.8 of 1982.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority were based on material evidence and did not require any interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Issues: Assailing the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Agra in Rent Control Appeal No.8 of 1982.

Ratio Decidendi: The findings of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, based on material evidence, did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were allowed three months to vacate the premises under certain conditions.

Vikram Nath,J.

Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.331313 of 2011 with Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application ??.331312 of 2011:

Cause shown for delay in filing the restoration application is sufficient. Delay is condoned.

2. Further cause shown for recalling the order dated 4.8.2005 dismissing the writ petition is default is recalled. Petition is restored to its original number.

3. Both the applications are accordingly allowed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

5. This petition has been filed assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 22.4.1991 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Agra in Rent Control Appeal No.8 of 1982, Noori alias Noor Mohammad and others vs. Smt. Bishan Devi, whereby the appeal of the petitioners preferred against the order 26.2.1982 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Fatehabad, Agra in P.A. Case No.30 of 1976, Smt. Bishan Devi vs. Noori alias Noor Mohammad, whereby the release application of the respondent-landlords was allowed under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act) has been dismissed.

6. From a perusal of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority it appears that after considering the mandatory conditions as required under Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the 1972 Act were found to have been fulfilled and the building being in dilapidated condition was required for the purpose of demolition and new construction. Said findings are based upon consideration of material evidence on record. Further the Appellate Authority also examined the material on record and concurred with the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. The findings so recorded being pure findings of facts based upon consideration of material evidence on record do not require any interference in writ jurisdiction.

7. Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

8. At this stage Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for a reasonable time being allowed to vacate the premises. Learned counsel for the respondent although opposed the request for grant of time but submitted that the court may allow not more than three months time to the petitioners to vacate the premises.

9. Considering the nature of request and also the fact that in 1982, the Prescribed Authority had allowed the petition of the respondents for the release and it is almost 37 years since that the matter is pending, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents appears to be justified. Accordingly three months time is allowed to the petitioners to vacate the premises subject to the following conditions being fulfilled-

1. The tenant-petitioners shall file before concerned Prescribed Authority, on or before 30th November, 2013, an application along with their affidavit giving an unconditional undertaking to comply with all the conditions mentioned hereinafter:

2. Petitioners-tenant shall not be evicted from the accommodation in his tenancy up to 14th February, 2014. Tenant-petitioners, their representative / assignee, etc, claiming through them or otherwise, if any, shall vacate without objection and peacefully deliver vacant possession of the accommodation in question on or before 14th February, 2014 to the landlord or landlord's nominee/representative (if any, appointed and intimated by the landlord) by giving prior advance notice and notifying to the landlord by Registered A.D post (on his last known address or as may be disclosed in advance by the landlord in writing before the concerned Prescribed Authority). time and date on which Landlord is to take possession from the tenant.

3. Petitioners shall on or before 30th November, 2014 deposit entire amount due towards rent etc. up to date i.e. entire arrears of the past, if any, as well as the rent for the period ending on the 14th February, 2014.

4. Petitioners and everyone claiming under undertake not t




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
whatsapp-icon Back to top