Narayani Devi Vs. Mahendra Kr. Tripathi and Others.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4968 of 1997, with S.L.P (Civil) No. 8481 of 1997
Petitioner: Narayani Devi
Respondent: Mahendra Kr. Tripathi and Others.
Apeal: Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4968 of 1997, with S.L.P (Civil) No. 8481 of 1997
Judges: M.M. PUNCHHI & S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 19, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, M/s. A.N. Sinha and Mr. S.K. Misra, Advocates for Petitioner, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Ad-vocate for Respondents.
Head Note:
RENT CONTROL & EVICTION
U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 |
Section 18 – High Court allowing the respondent to file revision after orders of allotment or release – If orders go against him, no revision lies – Clarification.Held that High Court direction be read that in case order is against respondent, he may file writ petition.
U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 |
Section 18 – High Court allowing the respondent to file revision after orders of allotment or release – If orders go against him, no revision lies – Clarification.Held that High Court direction be read that in case order is against respondent, he may file writ petition.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER :- SLP © No. 4968/97:
In the impugned order dated 3-1-1997, the High Court has observed that M.K. Tripathi, the 1st respondent herein, would be permitted to contest the proceedings for allotment or release, as the case may be, and after a final order of allotment or release has been passed, he would be entitled to file a revision under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It is the admitted position that a revision in that eventuality would not lie. It has been urged that the said direction be read as if the High Court was permitting the said respondent to move in a writ petition the said respondent to move in a writ petition in the event of the final order of allotment or release going against him. As suggested, SLP © No. 4968/97 preferred by Smt. Narayani Devi would stand disposed of. SLP © No. 8481/97:
This cross-petition is dismissed on merit. Order accordingly.
In the impugned order dated 3-1-1997, the High Court has observed that M.K. Tripathi, the 1st respondent herein, would be permitted to contest the proceedings for allotment or release, as the case may be, and after a final order of allotment or release has been passed, he would be entitled to file a revision under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It is the admitted position that a revision in that eventuality would not lie. It has been urged that the said direction be read as if the High Court was permitting the said respondent to move in a writ petition the said respondent to move in a writ petition in the event of the final order of allotment or release going against him. As suggested, SLP © No. 4968/97 preferred by Smt. Narayani Devi would stand disposed of. SLP © No. 8481/97:
This cross-petition is dismissed on merit. Order accordingly.
