Back
SARAL SRIVASTAVA
Sudha Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
A. D. J. /Special Judge Sc/St Act – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Saral Srivastava, J.)
1. Heard Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioners/landlords through the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have assailed the judgement and decree dated 23.07.2016 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi in S.C.C. Revision No.59 of 2014 (Smt. Madhu Agrawal Vs. Jitendra Seth) whereby the Revisional Court has dismissed the S.C.C. Suit No.39 of 2012 against the respondents/tenants.
3. The petitioners/landlords have instituted S.C.C. Suit No.39 of 2012 against the respondents/tenants for eviction in respect of one shop bearing Shop No.46/1 (Old No.39/10/6) (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') on the ground of default of rent. It is further stated in the plaint that Provisions of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable over the suit property. Paragraph no.2 of the plaint which contains the pleading about non-applicability of Provisions of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 is reproduced herein-below:-
4. The respondents/tenants filed a written statement contending inter-alia that Provision
The burden of proof lies with the petitioners to establish the non-applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972, and estoppel does not apply against statutory provisions.
The interpretation of statutory language can be flexible to achieve legislative intent, as seen in the reading of 'and' as 'or' in Section 2(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972.
A tenant cannot deny the landlord's title once the landlord-tenant relationship is established; the tenant must prove lawful deposit of owed rent, and properties used for charitable purposes are exem....
The failure to consider crucial evidence and make specific findings can render a judgment perverse and warrant its quashing.
Admissions in pleadings regarding the construction date of a building preclude the applicability of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, leading to lawful eviction of the tenant.
A tenant's vague denial of allegations regarding property age does not meet the burden of proof required to contest eviction under the applicable laws.
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
