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

2006 Supreme(UK) 334

RAJESH TANDON
Anoop Tuteja – Appellant
Versus
Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Dehradun – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1.

Judgment

Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 .

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17th June, 2006 passed by the Rent Control & Eviction ,Officer in Case No. 55 of 1999.

3. Briefly stated, according to the case of the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 Lalit Mohan Gupta has moved an application under Rule 10 (1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 before the Rent Control Eviction Officer for allotment of the ground floor of property No. 31, Patel Road, Dehradun consisting of one room of 10'x 12', one covered verandah of 8' x 10', one kitchen and one latrine bathroom, jointly with other tenants under the tenancy of Jagdish Tuteja / father of the petitioner. The case was registered as Case No. 55 of 1999.

4. The report of the Rent Control Inspector was submitted on 22-08-2003 and it was found that the petitioner was living in the property in question and the house-hold articles were also present. However, on 17-06-2006, the Rent Control Eviction Officer has declared the vacancy and fixed 4th July, 2006 for allo




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