REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Mahesh Chandra Raikwar Appellant

V/S

Ravi Kankane Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SMT. KANTA DEVI JAIN VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRA NATH GORAI IN C A NO 85 OF 1961 SUBAL CHANDRA NATH SAHA IN C A NO 86 OF 1961 VS. SUDHIR CHANDRA GHOSHIN BOTH APPEALS :SUDHIR CHANDRA GHOSHIN BOTH APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
MUNI LAL VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
BEGA BEGUM VS. ABDUL AHAD KHAN DEAD [REFERRED TO]
PRATIVA DEVI VS. T V KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
D DEVAJI VS. K SUDARASHANA RAO [REFERRED TO]
KRISHANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
MARTIN AND HARRIS LIMITED VS. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTT JUDGE [REFERRED TO]
RAGAVENDRA KUMAR VS. FIRM PREM MACHINARY AND CO [REFERRED TO]
R C TAMRAKAR VS. NIDI LEKHA [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. NAVJOT SANDHU alias AFSHAN GURU [REFERRED TO]
YADVENDRA ARYA VS. MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
NIRBHAI KUMAR VS. MAYA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
JAI PRAKASH GUPTA VS. RIYAZ AHAMAD [REFERRED TO]
MOHD AYUB VS. MUKESH CHAND [REFERRED TO]
MISRI LAL VS. 9TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GORAKHPUR [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SATTAR KHAN VS. DISTRICT JUDGE SHAHJAHANPUR [REFERRED TO]
VELLAYAN CHETTIAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
DEEP KUMAR VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [REFERRED TO]
PUSHP RAJ AND OTHERS. VS. DISTRICT JUDGE, MEERUT, AND OTHERS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the petition filed by the tenants, challenging the order of the Additional District District Judge, Jhansi dated 9.4.2013 by which the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 11.5.2010 in P.A. Case No. 25 of 2008 has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners are the tenants of shop nos. 139, 140 and 141 ( New Nos. 185 & 186) Mohalla-Hingan Katra, Jhansi in which there are three shutters in which they are carrying on the business of Sweetmeat.

(3.) In a shop adjacent to the disputed shop, the respondent-Dr. Ravi Kankane is running his Dental Clinic since long. In the year 1988, the respondent purchased the house in which the disputed shop as well as the area in which the respondent is running the Dental Clinic in shop no. 142 are situated. After purchase of the shop in dispute, the respondent has given a notice dated 14.11.1991 to the petitioners to evict the shop on the ground that he needed the shop to expand his Dental Clinic. After giving the notice, a release application was filed, which was registered as Case No. 26 of 1992. The said release application has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 5.2.2000 on the ground that the release application has been filed before expiry of six months and, therefore, it is not maintainable. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority, the respondent filed an appeal, which has been dismissed vide order dated 30.5.2001.

Click here to view full judgment.

MAHESH CHANDRA RAIKWAR Vs. RAVI KANKANE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address