High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohammad Shami Khan and Others vs District Judge and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 3 August 2004 · Citation: (2005) 1 ARC 549

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anjani Kumar, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 10046 of 1987

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 333 words

Anjani Kumar, J.—This is tenant''s writ petition directed against the order dated 29th January, 1987 passed by District Judge, Annexure 4 of the writ petition whereby the appeal by the respondent-landlord against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing an application filed u/s 24 (2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

2.

The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner-tenant filed an application u/s 24 (2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as he was evicted on an application filed by the landlord-respondent u/s 21 (1) (b) of the Act. After the landlord demolished the dilapidated structure and constructed new house, the petitioner-tenant filed an application as contemplated u/s 24 (2) for allotment of a shop in the newly constructed house before the R.C. and E.O. who allowed the application and directed the landlord to allot the shop in favour of the petitioner-tenant. Aggrieved thereby the landlord preferred an appeal before the District Judge which has been allowed by the impugned order.

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority has considered the comparative hardship of the landlord as against that of the petitioner-tenant in the matter of allotment u/s 24 (2) which according to his submission does not require to be considered as held by this Court in cases reported in 1980 ARC 274.

4.

I have gone through the aforesaid law and in my opinion the submission of learned Counsel for petitioner deserves consideration and thus this order passed by the District Judge impugned in the present writ petition, deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the District Judge to decide the matter afresh in view of the aforesaid law. Since the matter is fairly old, the District Judge is directed to decide either himself or by some Additional District Judge within three months from the date presentation of certified copy of this order before him.