IBRAHIM CHARAN AND OTHERS Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-194
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 04,2007

Ibrahim Charan And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Ravindra Kumar and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Manish Tandon, learned Counsel who had filed caveat. Receipt has also been shown to the Court. Unfortunately Stamp Reporter has not reported the caveat on the writ petition. However, in paragraph 3 of the writ petition itself it is mentioned that Shri Manish Tandon, learned has filed caveat.
(2.) This is tenants' writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlords-respondents under Section 21(1)(a) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground of bona fide need in the form at Rent case No. 56 of 1995. Before Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (SD), Kanpur Nagar evidence was adduced by both the parties. However, thereafter tenant did not appear. Prescribed Authority while allowing the release application on 15.9.2004 observed that inspite of repeated opportunities no one appeared to argue the case. Against the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority petitioner filed Rent Appeal No. 77 of 2004. Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar dismissed the appeal on 31.7.2007 hence this writ petition.
(3.) The first argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Release application was transferred from the Court to another and petitioner was not aware about the transfer is not tenable and rejected. It is mentioned in the order of the Prescribed Authority that the learned Counsel for the tenant was repeatedly informed by the office about the transfer of the case but on every occasion he refused to acknowledge the information and told the concerned. Orderly of the Court that information should be sent to the client. There is no such provision of sending the information to the client for transfer of case if the client is represented by an Advocate. It is therefore abundantly clear that learned Counsel for tenant did not deliberately appear to argue the case before the Prescribed Authority. The said point is finally decided against the tenant.;


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