Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Verma v. City Magistrate Rent Control and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2022WRIA/18723/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders of vacancy and release. The court held the petitioner was an illegal occupant without evidence of co-tenancy or prior tenancy qualification under Section 14 of the U.P. Rent Act, 1972.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the petitioner is an illegal occupant and no regularization of tenancy is due.

Ashok Kumar Verma Vs City Magistrate Rent Control and… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18723 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Verma Respondent :- City Magistrate Rent Control And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Utsav Singh,Amrendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prakhar Tandon

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

In a proceedings under Section 12/16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the petitioner has been found to be an illegal occupant.

¶6

I have heard Mr. Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prakhar Tandon, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶7

A perusal of the orders impugned and the evidence on record shows that the petitioner has come up with a case that he was a co-tenant with one Ram Pyari, who was a tenant in the demised premises, which include a residential part and a shop. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a family member of Ram Pyari and there is no reason how the two would be co-tenants in the same premises. There is no evidence to show, nor is it the petitioner's case he entered into the possession of the demised premises through an order of allotment. There is no evidence to show that he was in occupation of the demised premises as a tenant prior to 14.07.1976, entitling him to regularization of his tenancy under Section 14 of the Act of 1972. So far as the evidence about occupation of the demised premises as a tenant is concerned, the municipal assessment record submitted by the tenant has been disbelieved as a bogus document, whereas that placed on record on behalf of the landlord has been believed, which does not show the

¶8

petitioner to be at all one of the occupying tenants. The petitioner's possession is, therefore, manifestly one in violation of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The order of vacancy and the consequent release order passed by both the Authorities below are, therefore, infallible and do not merit interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶9

In the result, writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶10

Order Date :- 28.1.2022 Deepak

Ashok Kumar Verma v. City Magistrate Rent Control and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Verma v. City Magistrate Rent Control 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

Bhagvan Saran and Another Vs Ram Singh and 7 Others

Raman Gupta and Another Vs Vinod Kumar Gupta

Smt.Chhangoori Devi Vs Sheela Devi and 2 Others

Prem Kumari Vs Kunwar Pal Singh and Another

Sri Suresh Pal Vs Wakf Kudda Band Tala Mausuma Wakf Kabristan Kambal

Anand Kumar Verma Vs Km.Anita Devi