Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAKESH THAPLIYAL
Udasin Karshni Narain Ashram – Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Taneja – Respondent
Judgment :
Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. The instant civil revision has been preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2022 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar in SCC Suit No. 05 of 2014 titled as “Udasin Karshni Narain Ashram Trust (Regd.) and others Vs. Mahendra Taneja” whereby suit of the plaintiffs / revisionists for recovery of rent, damages and eviction has been dismissed.
2. Relevant facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the issue involved in this revision are as follows:
3. Plaintiffs / revisionists preferred a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and eviction against the defendant / respondent inter alia with the averments that plaintiff no. 1 is the Trust, plaintiff no. 2 is Managing Trustee and plaintiff no. 3 is the Manager of the revisionist Trust. It is contended in the plaint that respondent-defendant is the tenant of plaintiff Trust in two shops i.e. shop no. 4 and 5 and rent was paid only upto 31.07.2012 and thereafter, for August and September, 2012 rent was due but not paid and the shops in question are new construction and since the same is owned by pla
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....
The court upheld the trial court's finding that the landlord was a charitable trust exempt from eviction laws, affirming that previous judgments establishing legal character are relevant.
The failure to consider crucial evidence and make specific findings can render a judgment perverse and warrant its quashing.
The Revisional Court's wide jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 allows it to decide the suit on merits if there is sufficient evidence on record, without the ....
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.
The court ruled that the trust in question was a private trust, rejecting claims of it being a public charitable trust, and upheld the applicability of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act.
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
