SHAIL VARSHNEY Vs. M/S. ADHUNIK PARIDHAN
LAWS(ALL)-2003-10-219
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 21,2003

Smt. Shail Varshney Appellant
VERSUS
M/s. Adhunik Paridhan and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Satya Poot Mehrotra, J. - (1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed today be taken on record. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 22nd April, 2002 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moradabad in Misc. Case No. 84 of 1991 and the judgment and order dated 25.1.2003 (Annexure -7 to the writ petition) passed by the learned District Judge, Moradabad in Civil Revision No. 72 of 2002. The dispute relates to a shop situated in Mohalla Mandi Chowk, Moradabad, the details whereof are given in the application under section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "the Act") referred to hereinafter. The said shop has, hereinafter, been referred to as "the disputed shop".
(2.) FROM a perusal of the writ petition and the annexures thereto, it appears that Jagdish Saran, the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioner filed an application under section 30(2) of the Act, inter alia, praying for permission to make deposit of rent in respect of the disputed shop. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 84 of 1991. Copy of the said application under section 30(2) of the Act is annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition. The said application under section 30(2) of the Act was contested by the respondents. Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 filed their objections, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition.
(3.) IT was, inter alia, stated in the said objections that an oral settlement had been arrived at in the month of August, 1988, and after the said oral settlement, the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 had no concern with the disputed shop; and that after the said settlement, only respondent No. 3 (Anil Agarwal) was the sole owner and landlord of the disputed shop; and that whatever rent had been received by the respondent No. 3 (Anil Agarwal), since August 1988, had been received by him as the sole owner and landlord of the disputed shop.;


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