Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (2.00 seconds)Section 22 in The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ranjeet Singh vs Ravi Prakash on 18 March, 2004
In support of his submission he placed reliance upon the decisions in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash 2004 (1) ARC 613 (SC) : 2004 (2) AWC 1721 (SC) and Chetan Prakash and Anr. v. Additional District Judge, Ghaizabad and Ors. 2006 (11) ARC 614 : 2006 (3) AWC 2220.
Bhagwan Singh And Ors. vs Ram Balak Singh And Anr. on 16 December, 1986
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent Nos. 3. 4 and 5 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was registered as P.A. Case No. 19 of 2002, Radhey Shyam and two others v. Balak Ram Bajpai, for release of southern portion of the premises T.P. No. 423 (Old No. 323) on the ground that they bona fide required the aforesaid southern portion of premises No. T.P. 423, Khirni Bagh Shahjahanpur which they alleged to have purchased on 19.12.1986 from Jag Jeewan Sahai through a registered sale deed. The petitioner was a tenant of the aforesaid premises since before its purchase by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. According to the averments made in the release application by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 the said premises is in dilapidated condition and needs reconstruction after its demolition.
Section 2 in The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Martin & Harris Limited vs With Additional Distt. Judge & Ors on 11 December, 1997
38. Since the respondents have filed the application for release after about 16 years of purchase of the house the other conditions under Section 21 regarding giving of notice, etc. would not be applicable as is apparent from the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents in Martin and Harris Ltd. (supra).
Anwar Hasan Khan vs Mohammad Shafi And Ors. on 19 October, 2001
In this view of the matter where the release application has been filed after about 16 years from purchasing the property there is no requirement of notice as is held in the decisions rendered in Martin and Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional District Judge and Ors. 1998 (1) ARC 109 (SC) : 1998 (1) AWC 580 (SC) ; Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi and Ors. 2001 (2) ARC 554 (SC) : 2001 (4) AWC 3228 (SC) and Vinod Kumar and Ors. v. IVth Additional District Judge, Jhansi 2006 (1) ARC.
1