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

2026 Supreme(All) 254

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
OGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Ram Dulari – Appellant
Versus
Harshit Yadav – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners(s): Akanksha Mishra

Table of Content
1. tenancy terms and eviction proceedings (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. interpretation of section 30, u.p. act no. 13 of 1972 (Para 10 , 11 , 14)
3. deposit requirements during litigation (Para 18 , 20 , 21)
4. limitations of invoking section 30 during pending suits (Para 22 , 24 , 25)
5. dismissal of the petition for lack of merit (Para 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Ms. Akanksha Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claim to be tenants in the premises in question since long, where a tailoring shop is being run as a source of livelihood. It is stated that rent was being regularly paid and after the death of the original tenant, the petitioners continued in possession and allegedly tendered rent to the respondent–landlord, who had purchased the property in the year 2010. It is further asserted that the landlord subsequently refused to accept rent, whereafter a money order dated 19.07.2021 was sent, which was not accepted. Consequently, the petitioners instituted proceedings under Section 30 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by filing an application, registered as Misc.Case No. 194 of 2021, seeking permission to deposit rent

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