Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Kiran Das And Another vs Vijay Chandra Gupta And Another on 7 July, 2010

Author: Devendra Pratap Singh

Bench: Devendra Pratap Singh

Court No. - 7

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38879 of 2010

Petitioner :- Smt. Kiran Das And Another
Respondent :- Vijay Chandra Gupta And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- S.N. Mishra

Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Vijay Chandra Gupta, respondent no. 1 filed a release application no. 15 of 1994 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the respondent no. 2 inter alia with the allegation that he had become the owner and landlord of the disputed building where the respondent no. 2 was a tenant on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 5.8.1989 and he required the said building for settling his son. The tenant respondent no. 2 bitterly contested the release application and a judgment was rendered after about 12 years in 2006 when the release application was allowed in his favour against which the tenant preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 91 of 2006. Thereafter Chameli Devi, the predecessor interest of the petitioners preferred an impleadment application claiming that she was the owner of the disputed premises and the registered sale deed was fraudulent for which she had preferred a Civil Suit No. 525 of 2007 for its cancellation and the respondents were in collision and as such she should be impleaded as a party in the appeal.

After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge after exhaustively considering the law on the point found that the petitioners have been set up by the respondent tenant and there was no collision between the parties and rejected the impleadment application.

Having considered the argument, the court is not inclined to take another view and accordingly, no case for interference is made out. Rejected.

Order Date :- 7.7.2010 AK