Dismissed

Vindo Kumar Vats v. Vijay Pratap Ahloovaliya

Allahabad HC29 Oct 2021A227/4722/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order dismissing an application for spot inspection and quashing a suit against him. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no perversity, but directed the trial court to decide the pending rent control appeal expeditiously within four months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition dismissed; trial court directed to decide Rent Control Appeal No.31 of 2021 within four months.

Vindo Kumar Vats Vs Vijay Pratap Ahloovaliya — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4722 of 2021 Petitioner :- Vindo Kumar Vats Respondent :- Vijay Pratap Ahloovaliya Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Saini

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶4

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.08.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Saharanpur in Rent Control Appeal No.31 of 2021 (Vinod Kumar Vats vs. Vijay Pratap Ahaloovaliya).

¶5

Facts in brief are that the petitioner is a tenant of shop of respondent-opposite party, who had filed an application, which was numbered as Small Cause Case No.10 of 2013, under Section 21 (1) (A) of Uttar Pradesh Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of shop in question. The said suit was allowed vide order dated 26.02.2021. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-applicant had filed Rent Control Appeal No.31 of 2021. During pendency of the said appeal, petitioner-applicant had also filed an application which was numbered as Application No.12 C2 dated 5.8.2021 to call for spot inspection report against which, the respondentopposite party had filed his objection. Vide order dated 17.08.2021, the learned Additional District Judge, Saharanpur dismissed the said application, hence, this writ petition

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below without considering the situations as well as without considering the need of the petitioner-applicant has allowed the suit filed by respondent-opposite party, hence, the impugned judgement and order passed by court below illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶7

I have gone through the impugned order. I am of the opinion that the court below has rightly allowed the suit filed by the respondent-opposite party and also rightly rejected the application filed by petitioner. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by court below.

¶8

The writ petition lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶9

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to decide the Rent Control Appeal No.31 of 2021 (Vinod Kumar Vats vs. Vijay Pratap

¶10

Ahaloovaliya), expeditiously, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, by fixing short dates and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶11

Order Date :- 29.10.2021 Ajeet

Vindo Kumar Vats v. Vijay Pratap Ahloovaliya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vindo Kumar Vats v. Vijay Pratap Ahloovaliya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Vs Pramod Kumar Jain

Sharad Kumar Khanna Vs Smt.Hansa Devi and and Others

Iftekhar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs Pyare Mohan Mathur and 3 Others

Sohanveer Singh and Another Vs Smt.Savita Gupta

M/S Nishyam Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sardar Rajbir Singh and 3 Others