Sheela Devi
v.
Jaspal Singh
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal No. 3236 Of 1998 | 13-07-1998
1. Leave granted.
2. No reason has been given by the respondent for not availing of the remedy of revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. The respondent straightaway filed a writ petition before the High Court where the High Court had re-examined the facts. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The respondent will be at liberty to avail of the alternate remedy of revision, if he so desires
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
2. No reason has been given by the respondent for not availing of the remedy of revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. The respondent straightaway filed a writ petition before the High Court where the High Court had re-examined the facts. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The respondent will be at liberty to avail of the alternate remedy of revision, if he so desires
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties --------------
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.B. PATTANAIK
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJATA V. MANOHAR
Eq Citation
AIR 1999 SC 2859
(1999) 1 SCC 209
2000 (1) ARC 1
LQ/SC/1998/620
HeadNote
Rent Control and Eviction — U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (19 of 1972) — S. 18 — Revision — Alternate remedy of writ — No reason given for not availing of remedy of revision — Impugned order of High Court set aside — Respondent will be at liberty to avail of alternate remedy of revision
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.