MOHD QASIM Vs. IIND ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI
LAWS(ALL)-2000-3-42
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 03,2000

MOHD QASIM Appellant
VERSUS
IIND ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the judgment and order of the prescribed authority dated 30-8- 1986 whereby, the disputed shop was released in favour of the landlord-respon dent and the order of the appellate authority dated 28-9- 1988 releasing the disputed shop to the extent of 1/2 portion.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the landlord-respondents, Noor Jehan and Badri Prasad, purchased the disputed house from one Behari Lal by way of a registered deed dated 11-2- 1977. THEy filed an application for release of the dis puted shop. It was alleged that the landlady, Noor Jehan, required the dis puted shop for carrying business. This ap plication was contested by the petitioner. THE prescribed authority recorded a find ing that the disputed shop was required for carrying the business by the landlady. This finding was confirmed by the appellate authority. It was found further that Badri Prasad also required the disputed shop for carrying his business. I have heard Sri M. A. Qadeer learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Merajuddin learned counsel for Respon dent No. 5, who was impleaded during the pendency of the writ petition. The application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act was filed by Smt. Noor Jehan and Badri Prasad. They expired during the pendency of the writ petition. The heirs of Noor Jehan is alleged to have executed sale-deed in favour of Shahnaz Parveen. She filed an application for impleadment in this writ petition. Her ap plication has been allowed.
(3.) IN view of the fact that now Respondent No. 5 has purchased the property, neither Respondent No. 3 nor Respondent No. 4 nor their heirs are inter ested in the matter. In view of the above the orders passed by Respondent No. 1 dated 30-8-1986 and 28-9-1988 are hereby quashed. The matter will be examined by the prescribed authority afresh and will con sider the matter in accordance with law on the need set up by Respondent No. 5, keeping in view the provisions of Section 21 (7) of U. P. Act No. 13of 1972.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.