KAMLA DEVI Vs. ADDITIONAL CITY MAGISTRATE R C AND E O KANPUR NAGAR
LAWS(ALL)-2001-8-8
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 29,2001

KAMLA DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
ADDITIONAL CITY MAGISTRATE R C AND E O KANPUR NAGAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. Sri Baldev Prasad husband of petitioner was original tenant of the premises in dispute. He died in 1989 leaving behind petitioner as well as two sons as heirs and they jointly became tenant of the premises in dispute. Respon dent No. 2 filed an application for allot ment of the premises in dispute on the ground that it has became vacant as one of son of petitioner namely, Sri Rakesh has obtained another residential building in the same municipality. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are landlord. They also filed an ap plication for release of the same. Sub sequently Respondent No. 1 by his order dated 2-8-2001 declared the premises to be vacant on the ground that son of the petitioner has acquired another accom modation in the same municipality, hence the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri K. K. Tripathi, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. 'srivastava, Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 7. Respondent No. 1 while declaring vacancy in the premises in dispute has not considered the affidavit filed by the petitioner that son of petitioner has not acquired another premises on the ground that this affidavit is not certified by any advocate. This is one of the major ground for rejecting the affidavit of petitioner and holding that there is un-rebulted evidence on behalf of respondent that the son of the petitioner has acquired another premises. In case there was some defect in the af fidavit filed by the petitioner then Respon dent No. 1 ought to have granted time to remove the defect. There is nothing on record to show that Respondent No. 1 granted any lime to remove the defect. In view of this, order dated 2-8-2001 is set aside. The case is remanded back for re-decision on the question of declaration of vacancy. The parties may appear before the Respondent No. 1 on 17th September 2001. By that date the petitioner may file proper affidavit. Thereafter Respondent No. 1 may again decide the case in accord ance with law. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of .;


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