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

2015 Supreme(All) 4077

SUNEET KUMAR
Amit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Puttan Babu – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:- Tarun Agrawal, Vinayak Mithal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- R.K.R. Sharma, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Suneet Kumar, J. –

Heard Sri Tarun Agrawal and Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant and Sri B.N. Agrawal and Sri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord.

2. A release application was filed by the first respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act XIII of 1972 for release of the shop in dispute situated in Orai at district Jalaun. The landlord pleaded bona fide need for his wife and three sons who were educated but unemployed. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No.07/2007 which was allowed on 28 November 2008 rejecting the release application. Aggrieved, first respondent-landlord assailed the order in a petition being Writ - A No. - 3171 of 2009 (Puttan Babu v. Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Jalaun at Orai & others), this Court allowed the petition, remanded the matter by order dated 6 August 2014 directing the Appellate Court to decide the bona fide need set up by the landlord for two sons, namely, Pramod Kumar and Sujeet Kumar. The relevant extract is as follows:

"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgement






















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