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

2025 Supreme(All) 2639

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Pawan Kumar Kothiwal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Revisionist : Archit Mehrotra
For the Opposite Party : C.S.C.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Archit Mehrotra, learned Advocate appearing for revision-applicants and Shri O.P. Singh Sikarwar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State of U.P. and Regional Food Controller, Civil Lines, Moradabad, the tenant respondents.

2. The sole issue that arises for consideration before the Court is as to whether an unregistered document presented by the respondent can be read into to draw an inference that there was a tenancy in perpetuity and therefore, could not have been determined by issuance of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 .

3. In the instant case revision-applicant/ plaintiff has been non- suited in the eviction suit only for the reason that respondent presented an unregistered agreement before the court to demonstrate that there was not fixed term tenancy contrary to the stand taken by plaintiff that there was a fixed term tenancy to expire on 30.06.2009 and, therefore, the respondents were liable to be evicted upon expiry of the term of tenancy and in the event of their failure to vacate the premises, the tenancy was liable to be determined by issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Pro

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