RAM NARAYAN SHARMA versus SHAKUNTALA GAUR

RAM NARAYAN SHARMA versus SHAKUNTALA GAUR

The respondent, as owner by transfer after allotment, could not move release application under Section 16(1)(b); only remedy was eviction under Section 21(1)(a) after three years. The orders passed in the infructuous revision proceedings were inconsequential and ineffective. The appellant was not a prospective allottee, but an allottee in possession. The High Court and revisional court erred in releasing the accommodation in favour of the respondent.

Parties
Appellant: Ram Narayan Sharma; Respondent: Shakuntala Gaur
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 16.11.1999 of Allahabad High Court in C.m.w.p. No. 47673 of 1999
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Allotment of Premises, Release Application, Bonafide Requirement, Eviction, Revision Proceedings
Rent Control Property Law Allotment of Premises Release Application Bonafide Requirement Eviction Revision Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Narayan Sharma

Appellant

Shakuntala Gaur

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 16.11.1999 of Allahabad High Court in C.m.w.p. No. 47673 of 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent, as a transferee, could move release application for premises already allotted to appellant
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was rightly treated as a prospective allottee
  3. 3 Whether revisional and High Court orders releasing the accommodation were valid

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent, as owner by transfer after allotment, could not move release application under Section 16(1)(b); only remedy was eviction under Section 21(1)(a) after three years. The orders passed in the infructuous revision proceedings were inconsequential and ineffective. The appellant was not a prospective allottee, but an allottee in possession. The High Court and revisional court erred in releasing the accommodation in favour of the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of the High Court and revisional court set aside
  • Order of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer restored