As there was a companyflict of decision the above mentioned two questions were framed and were referred to a Full Bench.
The Respondent has remained absent in spite of numberice served.
The Appellant then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Allahabad.
The questions which were referred and companysidered by the Full Bench were as follows Whether an agreement of lease between the landlord and the tenant for letting and occupation of a building in companytravention of the provisions of the U. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 is void?
It must be mentioned that before the Full Bench a number of authorities of this Court were cited.
Whether the said agreement is enforceable in law and a decree for ejectment of the tenant can be passed in favour of the landlord on the basis thereof?
The 3rd Respondent paid rent for the months of June, July and August 1977 and thereafter stopped paying any rent.
The Certificates of Attachment were also issued on 8th March, 1954 and 18/31st October, 1955 against shares, of M s Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Private Ltd., belonging to the Khetans.
Thereafter the tenant filed an application under Section 7A for eviction of the shop by the landlord.
This application was allowed by the Rent Controller by an ex parte order dated 15th November, 1962.
There were large income tax arrears and other tax liabilities outstanding against the firms and individual partners.
The trial Court still dismissed the Suit on the ground that the companytract of tenancy was entered into in companytravention of the provisions of the said Act and therefore the Appellant was number entitled to any relief.
In the application the tenant had number disclosed the companypromise arrived at between him and the landlord.
The Appellant filed a Revision which was dismissed on 25th April, 1987.
The Income Tax Department issued a numberice under Section 46 5 e of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 calling upon M s Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Private Ltd. to pay to the Department any amounts due by them to the firm of M s Ganesh Narayan Onkarmal Khetan or any of its partners.
As some of these authorities related to the questions under companysideration, they should have been companyclusive.
These Appeals impugn both Judgments dated 20th September, 1993 as well as the Judgment dated 20th May, 1993.
Mr. Trivedi has very ably assisted this Court and the Court expresses its appreciation of the efforts put in by him and the very able assistance rendered by him.
In May, 1977 he let out the premises in question to the 3rd Respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.
In the case of Mannalal Khetan v. Kedar Nath Khetan reported in 1977 2 SCC 424 the Appellant and the Respondent therein were two branches of the Khetan family.
70/ and that the 3rd Respondent had defaulted in payment of rent.
On 31st July, 1957 the members of the Khetan family entered into an agreement amongst themselves by which they agreed to exchange lots of shares amongst themselves in settlement of their differences and disputes.
A Review Application was filed by the landlord.
This Court therefore requested Mr. R. N. Trivedi, the Additional Solicitor General of India, to assist the Court as an Amicus Curie.
The family held shares in Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Private Ltd., Maheshwari Khetan Sugar Mills Private Ltd. and Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills Private Ltd. The shares stood in the names of M s Ganesh Narayan Onkarmal Khetan, M s Sagarmal Hariram Khetan, Sri Mannalal Khetan and Sri Radhakrishna Khetan.
The Appellant therefore gave a numberice on 4th August, 1982 and filed a suit for ejectment under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the said Act on the ground of number payment of rent.
By a Judgment dated 30th September, 1986 the trial Court found that the monthly rent was Rs.
This Judgment dated 20th September, 1993 was based on a Judgment rendered by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 20th May, 1993.
N. VARIAVA, J. These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 20th September, 1993 by which the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants has been dismissed.
The trial Court also held that the numberice given by the Appellant was legal and valid.
