Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Mohammad Zaki Khan – Appellant
Versus
Gopal Krishna Gangal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1.Heard Sri Rajeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Aligarh, in S.C.C. Suit No. 27 of 2012 (Shri Gopal Krishna Gangal vs. Mohammad Zaki Khan), whereby the suit instituted by the respondent-landlord for ejectment and arrears of rent against the tenant came to be decreed. Challenge has also been laid to the subsequent order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the District Judge, Aligarh in S.C.C. Revision No. 42 of 2025 (Mohammad Zaki Khan vs. Shri Gopal Krishna Gangal), affirming the judgment of the trial court.
3. The dispute arises out of S.C.C. Suit No. 27 of 2012 instituted by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant in respect of a shop situated at Battomal Market, Palval Road, Qasba Khair, District Aligarh. The petitioner claimed tenancy since the year 1987 at a monthly rent of Rs.400/-. Alleging default in payment of rent and termination of tenancy by notice dated 10.05.2012, the respondent instituted the suit for ejectment and ar
A tenant's vague denial of allegations regarding property age does not meet the burden of proof required to contest eviction under the applicable laws.
The applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act was denied due to evidence of new construction, leading to lawful eviction under the Transfer of Property Act.
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.
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....
Admissions in pleadings regarding the construction date of a building preclude the applicability of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, leading to lawful eviction of the tenant.
The failure to consider crucial evidence and make specific findings can render a judgment perverse and warrant its quashing.
The court established that the construction date of a property can determine the applicability of eviction laws, impacting tenant rights.
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
