Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)
Ved Prakash vs Suresh Garg And Ors. on 12 April, 2007 cites

Muni Lal And Ors. vs Prescribed Authority And Ors. on 20 September, 1976

In Munni Lal v. Prescribed Authority Agra and Ors. 1992 (2) ARC 86 : 1992 (3) AWC 1414, Hon'ble G.P. Mathur (as he then was) after examination of the scheme of the Act has held that it contemplates three kinds of proceedings which may be taken by a landlord for recovery of possession of the building which is covered by the provisions of the Act and the proceedings have to be taken before three different authorities. There is no inter se conflict between the nature of the proceedings which may be initiated under the provisions of the Act. It says:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 40 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Nutan Kumar And Ors vs Iind Additional District Judge & Ors on 27 September, 2002

20. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nutan Kumar and Ors. v. IInd Addl. District Judge 2002 (2) ARC 645 : 2003 (1) AWC 213 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has held that a person who occupies, without an allotment order in his favour shall be deemed to be unauthorized occupant of such premises. The suit for ejectment of a trespasser to get back possession from a trespasser could always be filed. Emphasis was laid by the learned Counsel on the following observations made in para 12 of the report:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 69 - S N Variava - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Khare vs K.C. Kardam, Deputy Registrar, ... on 8 January, 1999

12. Reliance was placed on Dr. Ashok Kumar v. K.C. Panwar and Ors. 1979 ARC 193, wherein it was held that a case under Section 16 is different than one covered by Section 21 of the Act. The background facts of the said case is that the sitting tenant was going to vacate the premises in question and an application for allotment was filed by a third person. The landlord instead of filing an application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act filed an application for release under Section 21 of the Act and the said application was decided in terms of the compromise. In this fact situation, this Court held that the prescribed authority could have recorded a lawful compromise and when an application for allotment had also been filed and the vacancy was imminent, the prescribed authority was not justified in making an order of release under Section 21 of the Act on the basis of compromise. An application according to the above authority can be filed against a sitting tenant. Where vacancy had occurred. the question of making release order does not arise. The ratio decendi of the above case should be understood in the background facts of that case and not out of the context. The above case was a case of actual vacancy. The U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 contemplates two types of vacancies, one actual vacancy and the another deemed vacancy. The case in hand, even according to the petitioner at the most may be a case of deemed vacancy and not beyond it. Neither the petitioner nor the heirs of Gopi Chand have come forward that they have vacated the shops in dispute and there is a vacancy. The ruling relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not advance the case any further.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - D K Seth - Full Document
1