AMAR NATH Vs. NOOR ILAHI ALIAS NOORAN
LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-120
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 16,2007

AMAR NATH Appellant
VERSUS
NOOR ILAHI ALIAS NOORAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 3-12-2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Saharanpur allowing the Rent Control Appeal No. 34 of 1998 filed by the respondents against the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Saharanpur dated 16-10-1998 rejecting the release application filed by the respondents. The facts giving rise to this writ petition, in brief, are that the disputed shop No. 5/461 situated in Mohalla Hiran Maran (Maniharan) was given on rent to the petitioner by Sri Abdul Rehman, husband of Smt. Noor Ilahi (respondent No. 1 ). After the death of Sri Abdul Rehman his widow Smt. Noor Ilahi, respondent No. 1 became the landlady of the property and realized rent from the petitioner. In the year 1997 a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by Smt. Noor Ilahi alongwith Sri Mohd. Saleem (respondent No. 2), the son of brother-in-law of late Abdul Rehman who is said to have inherited the tenement by Hiba executed by the landlord Abdul Rehman in his favour.
(3.) THE petitioner-tenant contested the release application by filing a written statement stating that after the death of Abdul Rehman the rent was always realized by his widow Smt. Noor Ilahi at the rate of Rs. 200/- p. m. It was denied by him that the shop was transferred in favour of respondent No. 2 also by deceased landlord Abdul Rehman by executing a Hibanama for want of knowledge. THE petitioner claimed to have never been informed about any Hibanama alleged to have been executed on 15-12- 1976 by the deceased Abdul Rehman, the landlord, in respect of his property in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The bona fide need of the respondents was also denied by the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the Baithak (drawing room) of the landlords could be used as a shop by them.;


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