MURLIDHAR AGGARWAL (D.) THR. HIS LR. ATUL KUMAR AGGARWALversusMAHENDRA PRATAP KAKAN (D.) THR. LRS. AND ORS.
2025 INSC 56424 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a landlord, sought eviction of a tenant who had occupied a cinema building in Allahabad since 1952 under a ten‑year lease that had long expired. The Prescribed Authority had allowed eviction on the ground of bona‑fide need, noting the landlord's limited income, his crippled son’s dependence, and the tena…
GEETA GUPTAversusRAMESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI & ORS.
2021 INSC 50020 September 2021Dismissed
Geeta Gupta purchased a property in 1994 that had been let to Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi since 1975 under an agreement with Dhruv Narayan Tripathi, who claimed power of attorney from the original owners. The second respondent applied under Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evi…
GANPAT ROY AND OTHERS ETC.versusTHE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS ETC.
1985 INSC 6219 March 1985Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined two civil appeals filed by tenants (Ganpat Roy and others) who challenged orders notifying a "deemed vacancy" of their non‑residential premises under Section 12(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The tenants argued that the District M…
R.K. PARASHERversusDINESH KUMAR AND ORS.
2000 INSC 13613 March 2000Case Partly allowed
The appellant, Dr. R.K. Parashar, was allotted Shop No.123‑A by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, a decision later upheld by the Additional District Judge. Respondent No.1, Dinesh Kumar, who had earlier attempted to regularise his occupation of the same shop through applications under Rule 10(6) and Section 14 of …
ACHAL MISRAversusRAMA SHANKER SINGH AND ORS.
2005 INSC 19611 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord (Achal Misra) sought to set aside orders of allotment of two floors of a building to tenants under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, arguing that the earlier declaration of vacancy was erroneous and that the High Court erred in holding that the vacancy …