SETH BALGOPAL DAS versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

SETH BALGOPAL DAS versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Practice of filing revision application before Additional District Magistrate does not amount to compliance with Section 3(2) of the Act; lacking rule or specific authorisation, application must be made directly to the Commissioner.

Parties
Appellant: Seth Balgopal Das; Respondent No. 4: Mrs. Sheila Ka1ha; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 April 1976
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 8 August 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 189 of 1972
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs throughout.
Legal Topics
Procedure for Revision Under Rent Control Statute, Authority for Receiving Revision Applications, Exclusion of Time Under Limitation Act
Landlord Tenant Rent Control Procedure for Revision Under Rent Control Statute Authority for Receiving Revision Applications Exclusion of Time Under Limitation Act

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seth Balgopal Das

Appellant

Mrs. Sheila Ka1ha

Respondent No. 4

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 8 August 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 189 of 1972

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether practice of filing revision applications before Additional District Magistrate amounts to valid compliance with Section 3(2) of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947
  2. 2 Whether time spent in obtaining certified copy can be excluded under Section 12(2) of Limitation Act, 1963

Ratio Decidendi

Practice of filing revision application before Additional District Magistrate does not amount to compliance with Section 3(2) of the Act; lacking rule or specific authorisation, application must be made directly to the Commissioner.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs throughout.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded throughout.