CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Santosh Ghai vs Manorama Agarwal

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 25 September 2003 · Citation: (2003) 09 AHC CK 0147

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.P.Mehrotra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — Section 21(1)(a)
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 43911 of 2003
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 371 words

S. P. Mehrotra, J.—The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 10th September, 2003 (Annexure7 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Rampur.

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."

3.

From the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "the Act") against the petitioner for the release of the disputed accommodation. The said release application was registered as P.A, Case No. 10 of 2000. A copy of the release application has been filed as Annexure2 to the writ petition.

4.

It further appears that during the pendency of the said release application, the petitioner filed an application dated 21st January, 2003 (Annexure6 to the writ petition), inter alia, praying for summoning the respondent for crossexamination.

5.

By the order dated 10th September, 2003, the said application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Rampur.

6.

Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

7.

I have heard Shri K. K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

8.

It will be noticed that the order dated 10th September, 2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Rampur, is an interlocutory order, and it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said order in appeal under Section 22 of the Act, in case the final decision in P.A. Case No. 10 of 2000 goes against the petitioner, and the petitioner files appeal against such final decision.

9.

Therefore, without going into the merits of the impugned order dated 10th September, 2003, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the said order, at this stage.

10.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed subject to the aforesaid observations.