Back
SUNIL AMBWANI, MOHD.TAHIR
NEENA JAIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent
By the Court.—We have heard Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Deeba Siddiqui. Learned Advocate General assisted by Shri Ravi Shanker Prasad had appeared for State respondents. Shri Ashok Nath Tripathi appeared for the respondent-landlord.
2. Smt. Neena Jain wife of Shri Avnish Jain, her two sons Archit Jain and Nishith Jain and Shri Rajnish Jain-the brother of petitioner’s husband are owners and landlord of a commercial property on the Court Road, Saharanpur. The complex of shops on the ground floor and the rooms on the first floor of the property are situate on the main road of the commercial centre of the district. One of the shops on the front side adjoining the road was given on rent to Gandhi Ashram-the respondent No. 2 (the tenant). A part of the front portion given to Dr. Mohan Pandey and the other, in which an ice cream parlour was running on rent, were sold to them by the petitioners.
3. It is stated that Smt. Neena Jain and her children are in dire need of money. They want to dispose of the shop occupied by Gandhi Ashram. The tenancy of the shop let out to Gandhi Ashram is regulated by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and E
SHAMEEM ARA HAIDER VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO. 1 LUCKNOW - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 962: Held "per incuriam and not a good law" in a Division Bench judgement in Neena Jain and others v. ..., explicitly identifying it as bad law.
Vasudev VS Sudeep Kumar Jain - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2553: Referenced in argument by counsel (Sri Balwinder Singh Suri) regarding the judgment in Neena Jain Vs., in context of cases treated as bad law (cross-referenced with SHAMEEM ARA HAIDER VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO. 1 LUCKNOW - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 962), suggesting negative treatment or distinction as part of the same lineage of overruled/undermined precedents.
Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. VS Santokh Singh (HUF) - 2007 8 Supreme 587: No negative treatment indicated; states positive legal principles (e.g., "A junior member... can also manage... as Karta... in certain conditions"), with no keywords suggesting criticism, overruling, or reversal.
State of A. P. VS Mcdowell And Company LTD. - 1996 4 Supreme 604: Affirms constitutional validity (e.g., "the Amending Act... is constitutionally valid"), with no indication of negative treatment.
Government of Andhra Pradesh VS Smt. P. Laxmi Devi - 2008 2 Supreme 472: Holds statute constitutional (e.g., "Section 47A(1)... is not unconstitutional"), emphasizing strict construction and judicial restraint, with no negative treatment indicators.
Peoples Union For Civil Liberties VS Union Of Indias - 2004 1 Supreme 838: Articulates strong legal principles on RTI and fundamental rights (e.g., "Right of information is a facet of ‘speech and expression’"), presented as important points without criticism.
Malpe Vishwanath Acharya VS State Of Maharashtra - 1998 1 Supreme 124: Existing provisions "can no longer be considered to be reasonable," indicating criticism or questioning of the provisions (and implicitly the upholding precedent), though not explicitly overruled.
BAL KISHAN VS IVTH A. D. J. - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 1917: Emphasizes "necessity for incorporating... provision for periodical enhancement," implying criticism of the status quo under U.P. Rent Control Act (frozen rents), suggesting the prior framework is flawed.
MILAP CHANDRA JAIN VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2001 0 Supreme(All) 912: Describes freezing of rent as "unreasonable, unfair, and unequal... violates... Article 14," criticizing and effectively questioning/undermining prior rent control precedents as unconstitutional.
[]
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
