ANIL KUMAR DHAWAN Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY MORADABAD
LAWS(ALL)-2003-3-90
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 31,2003

Anil Kumar Dhawan Appellant
VERSUS
PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY MORADABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.P.MEHROTRA,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commending the respondent No. 1 (Prescribed Authority, Moradabad) to decide the implement application No. 36 Ga filed by the petitioner before delivery of the judgment in PA Case No. 4 of 2002.
(2.) THE dispute relates to an accommodation the details whereof have been given in the release application referred to hereinafter. The said accommodation has hereinafter been referred to as “the disputed accommodation”. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in the short “the Act”) against Smt. Shyama Dhawan (respondent No. 4) for the release of the disputed accommodation. It was, inter alia, alleged in the said release application that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were owners and landlord of the disputed accommodation having purchased the same from the previous owner Bal Govind and others and that the said Smt. Shyama Dhawan (respondent No. 2) was the tenant of the disputed accommodation at the monthly rent of Rs. 45 and that the disputed accommodation was bona fide required by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the residence of their family and that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would suffer great hardship in case of rejection of the release application while in comparison the said Smt. Shyama Dhawan (respondent No. 4) would not suffer any hardship in case the release application was allowed. The said release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 4 of 2002. Copy of the said release application has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
(3.) IT further appears that the said Smt. Shyama Dhawan (respondent No. 4) contested the said release application and filed her written statement. Copy of the written statement has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.;


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