Anupam Vijay Gupta Urf Anupam Vijay vs Mohd. Nasir Urf Nasir Ahmad — 9/2020

Case under Provincial Small Cause Courts Act Section ... Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 09th March 2026.

Civil Suit

CNR: UPBJ010051422020

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

369/2020

Filing Date

04-11-2020

Registration No

9/2020

Registration Date

04-11-2020

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

4-III-Addl. District Judge/Regular

Decision Date

09th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Acts & Sections

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act Section ..

Petitioner(s)

Anupam Vijay Gupta Urf Anupam Vijay

Adv. Parshant Kumar Goel

Respondent(s)

Mohd. Nasir Urf Nasir Ahmad

Hearing History

Judge: 4-III-Addl. District Judge/Regular

09-03-2026

Disposed

23-02-2026

Judgements

20-02-2026

Arguments

18-02-2026

Arguments

17-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

09-03-2026
Judgement

Summary The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff (landlord) against the defendant (tenant), ordering the defendant to vacate shop no. 17 in Ramesh Super Bazaar and pay outstanding rent of ₹82,672.10 along with damages, compensation for unauthorized obstruction of common passage (₹1,000/month), and use and occupation charges (₹8,000/month) from the notice date. The court found the defendant in willful default of rent payment obligations despite the rental agreement requiring 10% biennial increases, and upheld the validity of the eviction notice issued under the Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1972. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

03-10-2023
Order Copy
01-05-2025
Order Copy
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff (landlord) against the defendant (tenant), ordering the defendant to vacate shop no. 17 in Ramesh Super Bazaar and pay outstanding rent of ₹82,672.10 along with damages, compensation for unauthorized obstruction of common passage (₹1,000/month), and use and occupation charges (₹8,000/month) from the notice date. The court found the defendant in willful default of rent payment obligations despite the rental agreement requiring 10% biennial increases, and upheld the validity of the eviction notice issued under the Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1972. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case