NDLI: Mohd. Inam Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Urban Buildings
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Delhi Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1952) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972: ss. 12(1)(b) and 16(1)(b) – Application by land-lord seeking declaration of vacancy u/s. 16(1)(b) – Alleging that the tenant had sub-let the tenanted premises – In the inspection report of the premises it was stated that the tenant was residing in the premises alongwith his sons, brother’s son and their families – Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the premises vacant – In writ petition challenging the order declaring the premises vacant, High Court granted liberty to the tenant to challenge the same after the final order would be passed u/s. 16 – Final order was passed in favour of land-lord – Revision filed against the final order as well as the order declaring vacancy – District Judge allowed the Revision, setting aside both the orders – Writ petition against the order of District Judge was allowed holding inter alia that vacancy could not have been challenged alongwith final order – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: In view of judgment in *Achal Misra case, it was open to the tenant to challenge the vacancy order along with final order in Revision u/s. 18 – Since the tenant was residing along with his sons, brother’s son and their families i.e. his family members, s.12(1)(b) would not get attracted – Thus the Authority’s (Rent Control and Eviction Officer) exercise of its jurisdiction was either illegal or with material irregularity – Therefore, the District Judge was justified in exercise of its Revisional power in interfering with the order of the Authority – The exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 227 by High Court was unwarranted and unjustified – Constitution of India – Art. 227.Revision:Revisional power – Scope of – Held: While exercising Revisional power, what is required to be seen is whether the order under challenge is in violation of any statutory provision or a bindingprecedent or suffers from misreading of the evidence or omission toconsider relevant clinching evidence or where the inference drawnfrom the facts proved is such that no person could arrive.Constitution of India:Art. 227 – Jurisdiction under – Nature and Scope of – Held:Though the powers u/Art. 227 are wide, they must be exercisedsparingly and only to keep subordinate Courts and Tribunals withinthe bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors – In theguise of exercising jurisdiction u/Art. 227, the High Court cannotconvert itself into a court of appeal.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 445
Petitioner	Mohd. Inam
Respondent	Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.
SCR	[2020] 7 S.C.R. 64
Judgement Date	2020-06-26
Case Number	2697

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Mohd. Inam Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (dead) By Lrs Vs. Naresh Chandra & Ors.

Chaman Lal Singhal Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.

Nagar Panchayat, Kurwai & Anr. Vs. Mahesh Kumar Singhal and Ors.

Mohd. Azeem Vs. District Judge, Aligarh and Ors.

Mohd. Nazir Vs. Bechand Prasad and Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs. Rishi Ram and Ors.

Nirbhai Kumar Vs. Maya Devi & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Pandey and Ors Vs. Gulbahar Sheikh and Ors.

Suresh Singhal Vs. State (delhi Administration)

Mohd. Inam Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.

Mohd. Inam Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (dead) By Lrs Vs. Naresh Chandra & Ors.

Chaman Lal Singhal Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.

Nagar Panchayat, Kurwai & Anr. Vs. Mahesh Kumar Singhal and Ors.

Mohd. Azeem Vs. District Judge, Aligarh and Ors.

Mohd. Nazir Vs. Bechand Prasad and Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs. Rishi Ram and Ors.

Nirbhai Kumar Vs. Maya Devi & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Pandey and Ors Vs. Gulbahar Sheikh and Ors.

Suresh Singhal Vs. State (delhi Administration)

Mohd. Inam Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.