GANESH TRIVEDI Vs. SUNDAR DEVI
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-89
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
January 11,2002
GANESH TRIVEDI
Appellant
VERSUS
SUNDAR DEVI
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
LALA RAM AUTAR VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-204] [REFERRED TO]SHYAM NARAIN PANDEY VS. SUKHOO [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ASHARAF VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO 9 VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE GONDA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-205] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU KASHYAP VS. RADHA RAMAN GUPTA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-294] [REFERRED TO]
AMIRUL HASAN VS. MOHAMMAD SHAFI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-312] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. OMAR VS. XIIITH A.D.J. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2005-7-271] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PRASAD VS. NARAYAN RAM CHANDAANI [LAWS(UTN)-2015-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PRASAD VS. NARAYAN RAMCHANDAANI (D) THR. LRS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH CHADHA & ORS VS. DHARAMVEER SINGH & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-430] [REFERRED]
DURGA PRASAD VS. NARAYAN RAMCHANDAANI (D) [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-147] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. SANJAY KUMAR AND 6 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-214] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The controversy in this case centers around S. 12(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter 'the Act,' for short.
(3.)Ganesh Trivedi, the appellant has purchased the suit premises situated in Deo Nagar, Kanpur city in the State of U.P. under registered deed of sale dated 18-12-1996 from Jagdamaba Prasad Awasthi who was till then the owner-landlord of the suit premises. The premises which are residential in nature were let out by Jagdamaba Prasad to one Suraj Prasad for the purpose of residence. Deo Narain and Suraj Prasad were real brothers. Suraj Prasad died some time in the year 1985. During his lifetime Deo Narain had come to stay with him and till his death was living in the suit premises along with his brother. Suraj Prasad died issueless survived by Deo Narain as the only heir of the former. He remained in occupation of the suit premises after the death of the brother. During the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court Deo Narain expired and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being respectively his widow, son and daughter have been brought on record by substitution in place of Deo Narain. These are undisputed facts.
(2.)The controversy in this case centers around S. 12(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter 'the Act,' for short.
(3.)Ganesh Trivedi, the appellant has purchased the suit premises situated in Deo Nagar, Kanpur city in the State of U.P. under registered deed of sale dated 18-12-1996 from Jagdamaba Prasad Awasthi who was till then the owner-landlord of the suit premises. The premises which are residential in nature were let out by Jagdamaba Prasad to one Suraj Prasad for the purpose of residence. Deo Narain and Suraj Prasad were real brothers. Suraj Prasad died some time in the year 1985. During his lifetime Deo Narain had come to stay with him and till his death was living in the suit premises along with his brother. Suraj Prasad died issueless survived by Deo Narain as the only heir of the former. He remained in occupation of the suit premises after the death of the brother. During the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court Deo Narain expired and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being respectively his widow, son and daughter have been brought on record by substitution in place of Deo Narain. These are undisputed facts.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.