REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

ANIL KUMAR Appellant

V/S

RAMRAJ Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HAR CHARAN SINGH V. SHIV RANI [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SONA DEVI V. DISTRICT JUDGE,BASTI [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH SINGH V. NATTHU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JHABUL RAM V. DISTRICT JUDGE,BALLIA [REFERRED TO]
NOOR MOHAMMAD V. XIV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,KANPUR NAGAR [REFERRED TO]
SAGAR V. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
HARISH CHANDRA VS. JAI NARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
NAGPUR HIGH COURT IN JANKIRAM NARHARI V. DAMODHAR RAMCHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
SIRI CHAND [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SANTOSH KUMARI V. 4TH A.D.J.,BAREILLY [REFERRED TO]
PUWADA VENKATESWARA RAO VS. CHIDAMANA VENKATA RAMANA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MOHAMMAD NAZIM [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. ATMARAM SUNGOMAL POSHANI [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. NANAK CHANDRA VERMA [REFERRED TO]
BASANT SINGH VS. ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION [REFERRED TO]
SAMITTRI DEVI VS. SAMPURAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHIV DUTT SINGH VS. RAM DASS [REFERRED TO]
SUKUMAR GUHA VS. NARESH CHANDRA GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
RASIPURAM UNION MOTOR SERVICE LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
VAMAN VITHAL KULKARNI VS. KHANDERAO RAMRAO SHOLAPURKAR [REFERRED TO]
UGRASEN VS. PARMESHWARI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH VS. SALEEM [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Shailesh Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 3.

(2.) This writ petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assails the order dtd. 21/4/2025 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 1993 and order dtd. 14/8/2025 passed by Additional District Judge, 4, Chandausi, Sambhal in S.C.C. Revision No. 28 of 2013.

(3.) The case in brief is that petitioner along with respondent no. 5 had entered into an agreement with one Ashok Raj, the landlord on 13/8/1986. Shops on ground floor, first floor and second floor were constructed with investment being made by petitioner-tenant. Shop at first floor and second floor were let out to tenant and rent agreed was Rs.400.00 which was to be deducted from the cost incurred in construction and renovation. On 11/7/1990, another agreement was executed between the landlord and tenant in respect of a shop situated on ground floor at monthly rent of Rs.1,000.00. As there was default in payment of rent, respondent-landlord gave notice under Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1882") terminating the tenancy and vacating the premises in question. A S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 1993 was filed when despite notice, arrears of rent from 10/9/1992 to 9/5/1993 was not paid along with house tax. The suit was contested by tenant and a written statement was filed wherein it was alleged that agreement dtd. 11/7/1990 provided that landlord cannot get the shop vacated as per Clause 3 of the agreement. The trial court framed following issues:-

Click here to view full judgment.

ANIL KUMAR Vs. RAMRAJ

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address