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

2024 Supreme(UK) 174

VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA
Raghav Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Chandra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Bhupender Singh, counsel.
For the Respondent: Mr. Siddhartha Sah and Mr. Neeraj Garg, counsel.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Haldwani in S.C.C. Revision No. 04 of 2019, whereby the said court dismissed the revision and affirmed the judgment and order dated 30.01.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldwani in S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 2015.

2. Heard.

3. Admit the petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants would submit that the respondent/landlord filed Suit No.11 of 2015 against the petitioners/tenants for ejectment on the grounds of non-payment of rent and also making material structural alterations in the tenanted property without taking permission in writing from the respondent/landlord; that, the Small Causes Court, Haldwani vide judgment and order dated 30.01.2019 (annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) observed that the petitioners/tenants have deposited the entire rental amount before the trial court, however, gave the benefit of Section 20(2)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short ‘the Act No.

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