Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR
Neeraj Kumar Rastogi – Appellant
Versus
Udaibhan Gupta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eviction suit and its basis. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's reasoning on pleadings. (Para 5 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. challenge to findings on lack of evidence. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 4. dismissal of the petition. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
1. Sri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned Advocate has his Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Verma and Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Tenant/petitioner namely Neeraj Kumar Rastogi has challenged the judgment and decree for eviction passed in S.C.C.Case No. 86 of 2015 as well as the judgment and order dated 19.09.2019 passed in S.C.C. Revision No. 110 of 2018.
4. Suit for eviction was decreed by the Small Cause Court upon determination of tenancy/lease rights with the service of notice dated 03.05.2014 issued by the landlord upon the tenant/ petitioner for the reason that the demised property was a construction of the year 1995-96 and hence not covered under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'Act No. 13 of 1972'). The relevant issues that were
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.
The applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act was denied due to evidence of new construction, leading to lawful eviction under the Transfer of Property Act.
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.
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.
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....
A notice is essential for terminating tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and default in rent payment is irrelevant if the Rent Control Act does not apply.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'building' under the UP Urban Buildings Act and the jurisdictional aspects of suits before the Small Causes....
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
