REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MAM CHAND Appellant

V/S

Pramodini Srivastava Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MAUNG SHWE GOLI V. MATING INN [REFERRED TO]
RAJANGAM AYYAR V. RAJANGAM AYYARTA [REFERRED TO]
MISRI LAL V. SPECIAL JUDGE (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE),GORAKHPUR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
NASEERUDDIN AND OTHERS V. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY,MEERUT AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SUGHRA BEGUM V. SRI RAM AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHANDRA PACHIT V. SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,SAHARANPUR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
K.D. DEWAN V. HARBHAJAN S. PARIHAR [REFERRED TO]
FURQAN AHMAD ALIAS MANA AND ANOTHER V. VIITH A.D.J. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL MANI DAYAL AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
VIDHYADHAR V. MANIKRAO AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
RAM BARAN PRASAD VS. RAM MOHIT HAZRA [REFERRED TO]
M M QUASIM VS. MANOHAR LAL SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
KANAYA RAM VS. RAJENDER KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
JIWAN DAS VS. NARAIN DAS [REFERRED TO]
LMTIAZ ALI VS. NASIM AHMED [REFERRED TO]
DEWAN AND SONS INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI SHANKER MISRA VS. FIRST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD AND [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA FRUITS AND GENERAL MARKET MEERUT VS. BIJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
VED RANI DIWAN VS. VIIITH ADDL D J GHAZIABAD [REFERRED TO]
FAKRUDDIN KHAN DECD VS. XTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR [REFERRED TO]
UDAI SINGH BHANUVANSHI VS. KUNJ BEHARI TEWARI [REFERRED TO]
SUJAN CHARAN VS. PRAMILA [REFERRED TO]
RUPCHAND BALMUKUND AHARWALA VS. JANKIBAI KANHYALAL [REFERRED TO]
CHHATRA KUMARI DEVI VS. MOHAN BIKRAM SHAH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Komal Mehrotra, Advocate for respondents. It is contended that though eviction proceedings were initiated against petitioners on the ground of section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"), i.e., the building is in dilapidated condition and requires to be reconstructed after demolition but the proceedings were initiated by respondents No. 1 to 4 through power of attorney holder, Sri Padam Prakash and two more persons, namely, Sri Sanjay Prakash and Sri Amit Prakash, both sons of Sri Padam Prakash, who were also impleaded as plaintiffs No. 5 and 6, though they had no right to the property in dispute.

(2.) It is said that the entire proceedings in fact were initiated, controlled and persuaded by holder of power of attorney of respondents No. 1 to 4. Admittedly the respondents No. 1 to 4 were landlords and owner of accommodation in question but the real owners and landlords never come forward and it is only the holder of power of attorney who has prosecuted entire matter, so much so that, in respect of such matters where the evidence relating to status and position of landlords and owners was to be seen, there the power of attorney holders have adduced evidence of their own status and position etc. and the Courts below accepting the same have recorded a finding in favour landlords owners and passed impugned orders. It is thus contended that entire approach of Courts below in passing impugned orders is patently erroneous and illegal.

(3.) In order to appreciate the objection and serious contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners, it would be apt to have a bird eye view of brief facts of this case.

Click here to view full judgment.

MAM CHAND Vs. PRAMODINI SRIVASTAVA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address