Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 Appendix-7 referred to in the order of Sudhir Agarwal, J. shall form part of the decree of Suit-5. 94. The Objection No. 20 of 2010, paras 5, 7 and 8 of Application No. 24(O) of 2010 and Application No. 19(O) of 2010 are disposed of accordingly. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SIDE SIDE DATED:LUCKNOW 16.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR,J. Rent Control No. - 33 OF 2011 Amanattullah S/O Niyamattullah and others. ...Petitioner Versus Additional District Judge, Court No.2 Bahraich and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi Sri B.R. Tripathi Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Manish Kumar U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of letting Rent and Eviction)-Rule 197-Rule 22-(e)-consolidation and decision of five different cases-pending in same courtobjection that term of Eviction used under Section 20, while release can be under Section 21, hence different nature of cases can't be clubbed together-heldmisconceived-once release application allowed-eviction of tenant automatically there-prescribed authority rightly exercises its power by consolidated all cases-petition dismissed. Held: Para 32 In the light of above said facts, submission made by learned counsel for petitioners that Rule 22(e) is applicable to eviction proceeding and not to release started on the basis of an application for release moved by landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, so the provisions of Section 22(e) will not be available because the term eviction has been used under Section 20 of the Act, is wholly misconceived argument and rejected in view of the facts stated above, coupled with the fact that once an application for release moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, then the natural outcome of the same will be eviction of tenant from the premises in respect to which release application has been moved, as such if two or more release applications have been moved by landlord for eviction of tenant then the Prescribed Authority/Appellate authority has got power to consolidate the same as per provisions as provided under Section 34(1)(g) read with Section 22(e) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Case law discussed: 1999(1) Allahabad Rent Cases, 557 (Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.) 1. Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By means of present writ petition, petitioners challenged order dated 27.11.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court no. 2, Bahraich in Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2007 under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 3. Facts in brief are that the controversy in the present case relates to six shops which are situated in Mohalla Brahmanipura, Chowk Bazar, Bahraich, purchased by respondent no. 2 to 5 on 28.02.1990 from erstwhile owner Sardar Raj Jodhveer Singh, in which the petitioners are tenants.
1 All] Amanattullah and others V. Additional District Judge, Bahraich and others 405 4. On 04/06.11.2000, landlord/respondents moved an application for release of six shops under the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) & 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Accordingly, the following cases registered before the Prescribed Authority/5th Upper Civil Judge, Bahraich. 1.Rent Control Case no. 5/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Vs. Abdul Basit). 2.Rent Control Case no. 6/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Vs. Shurur Ahmad). 3.Rent Control Case no. 7/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Abdul Quadir). 4.Rent Control Case no. 8/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Amanatullah). 5.Rent Control Case no. 9/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Aziz Ahmad). 6.Rent Control Case no. 10/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Kudubuddin). 5. On 04.10.2002 a compromise entered between the parties in Rent Control Case no. 10/2000 in respect to shop no. 6, accordingly released in favour of the landlords, so, the controversy before the Prescribed Authority remains in respect to 5 shops under the tenancy of the petitioners. 6. Before the Prescribed Authority, landlord moved an application under Section 34(1)(g) of Act read with Rule 22 of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, to consolidate the five cases i.e. Rent Control Case no. 5/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Abdul Basti), Rent Control Case no. 6/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Vs. Shurur Ahmad), Rent Control Case no. 7/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Abdul Quadir), Rent Control Case no. 8/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Amanatullah), Rent Control Case no. 9/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi Vs. Aziz Ahmad). 7. Accordingly, the said application registered as Paper No. Ka-17. On behalf of tenants, objection filed inter alia stating therein, that application moved by landlord to consolidate five cases is misconceived, rather the same is in contravention to the provisions as provided under Section 4(A) C.P.C. 8. By order dated 20.02.2002, the Prescribed Authority allowed application(paper no. Ka-17) moved by the landlord to consolidate five cases. 9. Needless to mention herein that order passed by Prescribed Authority for consolidate the cases not challenged by the petitioners and by means of judgment and order dated 29.10.2010, Prescribed Authority/5th Upper Civil Judge, Bahraich allowed all the five release applications of landlord moved under Section 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 10. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed Rent Appeal(registered as Rent Appeals nos. 3 of 2007 to 7 of 2007) under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 11. During the pendency of the Rent Appeals before Appellate Authority, on behalf of petitioners an application moved on 11.03.2010(Annexure no. 7) praying therein that all appeals shall be delinked and heard separately to which objection filed on behalf of landlord-respondents on 16.09.2010 (Annexure no. 8).
Page 1 and 2: 1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 3 and 4: 1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 5 and 6: 1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 21: 1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 25 and 26: 1 All] Amanattullah and others V. A
Page 27 and 28: 1 All] Amanattullah and others V. A
Page 29 and 30: 1 All] Anis Ahmad @ Chand Babu V. S
Page 31 and 32: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 33 and 34: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 35 and 36: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 37 and 38: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 39 and 40: 1 All] Kulwant Singh V. State of U.
Page 45 and 46: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 47 and 48: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 49 and 50: 1 All] Jile Singh V. State of U.P.
Page 51 and 52: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 53 and 54: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 55 and 56: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 57 and 58: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 59 and 60: 1 All] Ram Pheran Yadav V. Commissi
Page 61 and 62: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 63 and 64: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 65 and 66: 1 All Pankaj Kumar and others V. St
Page 73 and 74:
1 All Dev Sharan Yadav V. State of
Page 75 and 76:
1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 77 and 78:
1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 79 and 80:
1 All Shiv Om and others V. Distric
Page 81 and 82:
1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 83 and 84:
1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 85 and 86:
1 All Nagina and others V. State of
Page 87 and 88:
1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
1 All Naushad Alam V. State of U.P.
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkar
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
1 All Vikas Singh and others V. Sta
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
show all

Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?