MANOJ KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. ADDITIONAL CITY MAGISTRATE
LAWS(ALL)-2010-12-91
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 01,2010

MANOJ KUMAR SHUKLA Appellant
VERSUS
ADDITIONAL CITY MAGISTRATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 30.5.2009 (Annexure No. 4), 2.7.2009 (Annexure No. 6) passed by the respondent No. 1, Additional City Magistrate 2nd/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar and order dated 21.10.2010 (Annexure No. 9) passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar in the Rent Revision No. 35 of 2010. The brief facts of the case are as follows; An application dated 12.9.2007 under section 15(1) of the Act was filed by the landlord-respondent No. 2 in respect of House No. 361 Harisenganj, Private Shop No. 86, Police Station Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed premises'). On the said application, the rent control officer called for a report from Rent control inspector. The rent control inspector, after issuing notice to the petitioner under section 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), inspected the building and after recording the statement of the landlord-Respondent No. 2 has submitted its report. Subsequent thereto, the vacancy of the disputed premises was declared under the Act on 30.5.2009 and the release order dated 2.7.2009 was passed on an application filed by the landlord-Respondent No. 2 under section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Thereafter a revision was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.10.2010. Hence the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the premises was inspected by the Rent Control Inspector behind his back without giving any notice to the petitioner and the order declaring the vacancy of, the said premises has also been passed ex parte in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the petitioner is a tenant of the disputed premises and is entitled for the benefit as provided under section 14 of the Act.
(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.;


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