MOHD. INAM v. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, the appeal is allowed
Provisions considered
- Letting and Eviction Act, 1972
- U.P. Act, 1972 ss. 12, 16, 18
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ss. 97, 105(1), 105(2), 115
- Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
- Delhi Rent Control Act
- Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
- T.N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973
Judgment
liberty to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of *Achal Misra wherein it is specifically held, that even if a party does not challenge the vacancy order by way of writ petition, it is still open to it to challenge the same order along with the final order passed under Section 16 in the revision under Section 18. The High Court in the impugned judgment totally misinterpreting the order dated 23.8.2006, on an erroneous premise, held that the vacancy order could not have been challenged along with the final order. The finding is totally contrary to the law laid down in *Achal Misra case which is a binding precedent. [Paras 11, 13, 14 and 33] [77-G; 78-D-G; 88-B-C] *Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh and others (2005) 5 SCC 531: [2005] 3 SCR 439 – relied on.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the appeal is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Letting and Eviction Act, 1972; U.P. Act, 1972 — ss. 12, 16, 18; Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — ss. 97, 105(1), 105(2), 115; Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; Delhi Rent Control Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Supreme Court of India, on 31 May 2007. The bench was NAVIN SINHA, B R GAVAI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.