REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Rajesh Rastogi Appellant

V/S

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

M/S GOVIND RAM MEWA RAM V. II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [REFERRED TO]
RANG NATH V. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS,REPORTED IN [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI DEVI VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,VARANASI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
MATTULAL VS. RADHE LAL [REFERRED TO]
RAM PASRICHA VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
MALABAR FISHERIES CO CALICUT VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KERALA [REFERRED TO]
PRATIVA DEVI VS. T V KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
G KAUSHALYA DEVI VS. GHANSHYAMDAS [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKA PRASHAD D THR LRS VS. UMESH KUMAR VERMA [REFERRED TO]
G C KAPOOR VS. NAND KUMAR BHASIN [REFERRED TO]
DHANNALAL VS. KALAWATIBAI [REFERRED TO]
BADRINARAYAN CHUNILAL BHUTADA VS. GOVINDRAM RAMGOPAL MUNDADA [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL DAS VS. 1ST ADDL DIST JUDGE VARANASI [REFERRED TO]
VATSALA NAYAR VS. VANDANA TANDON [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL SHARMA VS. 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT [REFERRED TO]
AVINASH CHANDRA VS. VIITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE/APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF GHAZIABAD [REFERRED TO]
SIYA DEVI VS. 1ST A D J [REFERRED TO]
Sarika Kedia VS. Addl. District Judge, Deoria and others [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY BHATT VS. JULIAN ABRAHAM AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
PURAN CHAND VS. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER, KANPUR AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
BEW SHAKUREY ALIAS KAMRUL NISHA AND OTHERS VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed by the landlord and tenants with a prayer to issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 31.05.2012, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Lucknow in Rent Appeal No.4 of 2010 and the judgment and order dated 22.12.2005, passed by learned Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge, Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow in P.A. Case No.38 of 2003.

(2.) Admittedly, Rameshwar Prasad was landlord of the disputed premises who died on 05.12.2002, leaving behind two sons namely Rajesh Rastogi, Rakesh Rastogi and two daughters Pushpa Rastogi and Sangeeta Rastogi. The opposite parties before the learned Prescribed Authority under U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were the tenants. Out of four legal representatives of the deceased-landlord, Rajesh Rastogi moved application for release of the building on the ground of personal requirement as he is a Chartered Accountant, who wishes to establish his office-cum-chamber in the disputed premises. It was also pleaded that he is jobless. It is also admitted that the tenants were running a partnership business in the name and style of M/s Amarnath Ajay Kumar. Learned Prescribed Authority rejected the prayer for release, against which the landlord preferred rent appeal no.4 of 2010 which was also dismissed on the sole ground that the landlord has not impleaded the firm of which the tenants were partners. Due to this reason both the parties have preferred separate writ petitions.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the records.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAJESH RASTOGI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address