Tenants challenged eviction orders under UP Urban Buildings Act, 1972. Court held misnaming of sections was formal error and provisions regarding demolition were inapplicable as notice was already issued. Writ petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed in limine; Impugned orders upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPMS No. 2491 of 2021 Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. |
|||
| Shri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the caveator/ respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioners, being tenants, have challenged to concurrent orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short “the Act”). The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application was filed by the respondent under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act but the averments made in the application reflected that they satisfied the condition mentioned in Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act, therefore, writ petition should be allowed and the impugned orders be quashed. It is settled principle of law that nomenclature of the application is of no consequence, if the substance of the pleadings put forth is valid and reasonable cause of action for filing the application has been shown. Mistake in nomenclature is only formal in nature and not of substantial in nature, therefore, this contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable. The second contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per Rule 17 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,Rent and Eviction)Rules,1972,four |
| different conditions are required to be satisfied |
|---|
| for eviction of tenant for the purpose of |
| demolition of building but the courts below failed to consider these provisions. In the opinion of this Court, these provisions will not be applicable in the present case, in view of the fact that it is admitted case of both the parties that the Nagar Palika has |
| already issued notice to the landlord for |
| demolition of the property, in question, |
| because it is in dilapidated condition, so the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable. There appears no reason to hold that in ultimate analysis the writ petition should be allowed by exercising jurisdiction of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or supervisory |
| jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed_in limine_. I.A. No. 1 of 2021 also stands disposed of accordingly. (S.K. Mishra, J.) 14.12.2021 SKS |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to quash orders of eviction authority due to misnaming of the section invoked.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and others
Shri Sudhir Kumar and others
Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
