REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

USMAN Appellant

V/S

RAJESHWARI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SURESH CHANDRA JAIN VS. JAI KRISHNA GOSWAMY [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR JAIN VS. SUSHILA DEVI JAIN [REFERRED TO]
WARYAM SINGH VS. AMARNATH [REFERRED TO]
NIBARAN CHANDRA BAG VS. MAHENDRA NATH CHUGHUL DECEASED AFTER HIM HIS HEIR AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE [REFERRED TO]
RUKUMANAND BAIROLIYA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STEEL TUBES LIMITED VS. GUJARAT STEEL TUBES MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD YUNUS VS. MOHAMMAD MUSTAQIM [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIKANT REVCHAND BHOJWANI VS. PRATAPSING MOHANSINGH PARDESHI [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. PRAVINBHAI JASBHAI PATEL [REFERRED TO]
PEPSI FOODS LIMITED VS. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]
RENA DREGO VS. LALCHAND SONI [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRABHUSHAN VS. BENI PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KASHINATH RAVAT VS. VINAYAK N JOSHI [REFERRED TO]
SAVITA CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DYES AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRABAI BHAUSAHEB KEVATE VS. RAICHAND DHANRAJ LUNJA [REFERRED TO]
AJAIB SINGH VS. SIRHIND CO OPERATIVE MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HIMMAT SINGH CHAHAR [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. I O B STAFF CANTEEN WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MILIND [REFERRED TO]
ESTRALLA RUBBER VS. DASS ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
OUSEPH MATHAI VS. M ABDUL KHADIR [REFERRED TO]
DALMIA JAIN AIRWAYS LTD. VS. SUKUMAR MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner and Smt. Shreya Gupta learned counsel appearing for the landlord/respondent.

(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the tenant has been filed questioning the judgment and order dtd. 9/11/2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras in UPUB Appeal No. 01 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the Appeal of the Tenant/ petitioner has been rejected and the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority dtd. 6/4/2021 allowing the application of the respondents/ landlords under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 has been upheld.

(3.) The facts necessary for adjudication of the lis between the parties briefly stated are that the landlord/ respondents instituted a P.A. Case being P.A. Case No. 13 of 2014 under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 setting up a bona fide need for the shop situate in Gali Kaunjdan Punjabi Market, Hathras under the tenancy of the petitioner. It was stated that the release was sought on the ground that the respondent no. 2 is an Advocate by profession and requires the shop for setting up his chamber. The tenant has no requirement of the shop and is only occupying it to get Pagri. He carries on his business in Mathura. The release application was contested by the petitioner denying the plaint case stating that the shop is very small measuring 8x10 Feet and not at all suitable for establishing an Advocate Chamber. It was also stated that the tenant would suffer greater hardship in comparison to the landlord and prayed that the release application be dismissed.

Click here to view full judgment.

USMAN Vs. RAJESHWARI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address