R.K. PARASHER versus DINESH KUMAR AND ORS.

R.K. PARASHER versus DINESH KUMAR AND ORS.

Respondent No. 1, though initially in occupation with collusion of the landlord, could not be disqualified under Rule 10(5)(d) as he had the landlord's consent; also, the allotment authority erred in disregarding his application solely on this basis and failed to properly consider the appellant's eligibility for preference as a medical graduate under Rule 10(8)(b).

Parties
Appellant: R.K. Parasher; Respondent No.1: Dinesh Kumar; Respondent (father of Dinesh Kumar): Chandra Pal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment in Writ Petitions
Outcome
Civil Appeal No. 1472 of 1998 dismissed; Civil Appeal No. 1473 of 1998 allowed.
Legal Topics
Allotment Procedure, Regularisation of Tenancy, Eligibility of Applicants Under Rent Control Rules
Rent Control Property Law Allotment Procedure Regularisation of Tenancy Eligibility of Applicants Under Rent Control Rules

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.K. Parasher

Appellant

Dinesh Kumar

Respondent No.1

Chandra Pal

Respondent (father of Dinesh Kumar)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment in Writ Petitions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent No. 1, who entered into occupation with the consent and collusion of the landlord but was denied regularization, was disqualified from consideration for allotment under Rule 10(5)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972.
  2. 2 Whether preference in allotment under Rule 10(8)(b) should be given to the appellant as a qualified medical graduate for a non-residential building.

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent No. 1, though initially in occupation with collusion of the landlord, could not be disqualified under Rule 10(5)(d) as he had the landlord's consent; also, the allotment authority erred in disregarding his application solely on this basis and failed to properly consider the appellant's eligibility for preference as a medical graduate under Rule 10(8)(b).

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal No. 1472 of 1998 dismissed; Civil Appeal No. 1473 of 1998 allowed.

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (respondent No.3) for fresh decision on allotment after considering comparative merits of the appellant and respondent No. 1; all contentions are open to the parties.