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

2021 Supreme(UK) 551

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA
Parul Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Anil Prakash – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Shri Neeraj Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri D.S. Patni, Advocate, for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This is a tenant's Writ Petition, which has been preferred, by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as against the concurrent judgments, which has been rendered by both the Courts below in a proceedings, which were held under Section 21 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972, and as a consequence thereto, the release application, which was preferred by the respondents/landlord, seeking release of the tenement, in question, which happens to be a residential accommodation, has been allowed, and the petitioner/tenant, has been directed to vacate the premises and to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of it, to the respondents/landlord, within 30 days from the date of the judgment of the Prescribed Authority.

2. Though this Court should have avoided to make this remark, but owning to the deliberate and intentional, modus operandi, which is normally adopted, which has now, become a regular feature, almost in most of the cases, which are filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is constraint to make certain observations, which has been invariably found, to be followed by the learned Counsel, basically intended so as to mislead the Court or to avoid

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