Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar and 2 Others v. Additional District Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2019WRIA/21949/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging an order rejecting an application for release of vacant premises under UP Abma Act and regularizing a tenancy. The court found no material error or illegality in the lower authority's finding. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for being devoid of merits. The application under Section 9 was held to be not maintainable.

Sanjay Kumar and 2 Others Vs Additional District Magistrate/Rent… — Partition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21949 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- Additional District Magistrate/Rent Control And Eviction Officer, Varanasi And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶6

By means of the present petition, the petitioners have sought to challenge the order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supply)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi in Case No. 98 of 2001 instituted under Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

¶7

The records of the case indicate that an order dated 29.6.2004 was passed by the prescribed authority declaring vacancy of the premises in question. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent no. 2 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36324 of 2004 (Pramod Kumar Vs. Additional District Magistrate/Finance and Revenue Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi), and the writ petition was allowed vide judgement and order dated 20.10.2008, and the order declaring vacancy was set aside and the matter was remitted back to be decided afresh. On 27.10.2016 an application under Section 9 was filed by the petitioners in pending proceedings.

¶8

The respondent no. 1/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi by the order impugned dated 18.8.2018 has taken note of the fact that the premises in question were let out by the previous land owner to the father of the respondent no. 2, and the material on record showed that he was in occupation of the building prior to 5.7.1976, and in view of the provisions contained under Section 14 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 the tenancy stood regularized, and accordingly no vacancy could have been declared in respect of the premises in question.

¶9

In view of the aforementioned finding that the building was not vacant nor could the same be held to be deemed vacant under Section 12, the application for release under Section 16 (1) (b) was held to be legally not tenable and accordingly the same has been rejected.

¶10

As regards, the application filed under Section 9 it has been held that the same would not be maintainable in these proceedings, and that it would be open to the landlord to institute independent proceedings under Section 9 for appropriate reliefs.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material error or illegality in the order passed by the court below so as to warrant interference.

¶12

The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 15.4.2019 Pratima

¶13

(Dr. Y.K.Srivastava,J.)

Sanjay Kumar and 2 Others v. Additional District Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar and 2 Others v. Additional District Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Co-Operative Assurance Company Limited Vs Rent Control Eviction Officer /City Magistrate and Another

Ajay Arora and 5 Others Vs Luxmi Narayan Gupta and Another

Deepak Singh Vs Jhallar and Another

Naim Ahmad Vs Additional District Judge and 12 Others

Kailash Chaddha Vs Brig. O.P. Asthana and Another

Expression Ethnic Wear Co. and Another Vs Ajay Kumar Maurya