Shakuntla Devi vs Thakur annpurna Devi and Others — 2/2024

Case under U.p. Public Premises (eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 Section 13. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED IN DEFAULT on 23rd March 2026.

Misc. Civil Appeal

CNR: UPMT010004252024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

38/2024

Filing Date

15-01-2024

Registration No

2/2024

Registration Date

30-01-2024

Court

District and Session Judge, Mathura

Judge

7-Addl. District Judge Court No. 6

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED IN DEFAULT

Acts & Sections

U.P. PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT 1972 Section 13

Petitioner(s)

Shakuntla Devi

Adv. K karora

Respondent(s)

Thakur annpurna Devi and Others

Hearing History

Judge: 7-Addl. District Judge Court No. 6

23-03-2026

Disposed

19-03-2026

Hearing

18-03-2026

Hearing

10-03-2026

Hearing

27-02-2026

Hearing

Interim Orders

11-11-2025
Copy of Order
10-03-2026
Copy of Order

Summary The Additional District Judge dismissed an application (181-G) seeking to substitute Respondent No. 2 (daughter of the deceased tenant) as Appellant No. 2/5 in a rent control appeal. The court held that under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Rent, Eviction and Rates) Act, 1972, a married daughter cannot be considered a family member of the tenant's succession since she has a separate marital home, and therefore lacks legal standing to be made a party to the appeal. Consequently, Application 181-G was rejected and the objection application 185-G was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional District Judge dismissed an application (181-G) seeking to substitute Respondent No. 2 (daughter of the deceased tenant) as Appellant No. 2/5 in a rent control appeal. The court held that under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Rent, Eviction and Rates) Act, 1972, a married daughter cannot be considered a family member of the tenant's succession since she has a separate marital home, and therefore lacks legal standing to be made a party to the appeal. Consequently, Application 181-G was rejected and the objection application 185-G was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Session Judge, Mathura All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case