SRI KRISHNA KHANNA versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANPUR AND ORS.

SRI KRISHNA KHANNA versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANPUR AND ORS.

The order of allotment made after the expiry of 30 days is not invalid where disposal of the landlord's claim under Rule 6 was pending and no time limit is prescribed for such disposal; compromise agreements restricting statutory powers of allotment are void as against public policy; respondent No. 3 committed no fraud in ignoring the void compromise when applying for eviction under section 7A.

Parties
Appellant: Sri Krishna Khanna; Respondent: Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur; Respondent: Rent Controller, Kanpur; Respondent: Raghunath Prasad Mehrotra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 February 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed by majority (Mathew and Untwalia JJ), with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Allotment Orders, Compromise Decree, Public Policy, Eviction, Administrative Discretion
Tenancy Rent Control Administrative Law Allotment Orders Compromise Decree Public Policy Eviction Administrative Discretion

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sri Krishna Khanna

Appellant

Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur

Respondent

Rent Controller, Kanpur

Respondent

Raghunath Prasad Mehrotra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of allotment order made after expiry of prescribed period
  2. 2 Effect and legality of compromise decree contrary to public policy
  3. 3 Allegation of fraud in ignoring void compromise when applying for eviction

Ratio Decidendi

The order of allotment made after the expiry of 30 days is not invalid where disposal of the landlord's claim under Rule 6 was pending and no time limit is prescribed for such disposal; compromise agreements restricting statutory powers of allotment are void as against public policy; respondent No. 3 committed no fraud in ignoring the void compromise when applying for eviction under section 7A.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed by majority (Mathew and Untwalia JJ), with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.