ARUN KUMAR MEHTA S/O CHETAN PRAKASH MEHTA vs PUSHPA GOYAL W/O BRIJNANDAN GOYAL — 215/2025
Case under Rent Recovery Act Section 35. Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 12th May 2026.
Misc. Civil Appeal
CNR: UPSP010130202025
Filing Number
895/2025
Filing Date
04-10-2025
Registration No
215/2025
Registration Date
09-10-2025
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
5-Additional District Judge, C.R. No.1
Decision Date
12th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECIDED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ARUN KUMAR MEHTA S/O CHETAN PRAKASH MEHTA
Adv. ANIL KUMAR VERMA
Respondent(s)
PUSHPA GOYAL W/O BRIJNANDAN GOYAL
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Additional District Judge, C.R. No.1
Disposed
For Order
hearing
hearing
hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-05-2026 | For Order |
| 01-05-2026 | hearing |
| 27-04-2026 | hearing |
| 24-04-2026 | hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 215/2025 ARUN KUMAR MEHTA v. PUSHPA GOYAL & ORS The Rent Control Appeal Court set aside the lower court's order dismissing the tenant's application, finding the lower court failed to follow proper legal procedure under the UP Urban Property (Rent, Control and Eviction) Act, 2021. The court held that the tenant's application cited multiple statutory provisions (Sections 8, 4, 10, 21(2)(a)) but the lower court did not clarify under which specific provision relief was being sought before dismissing it, violating procedural requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 215/2025 ARUN KUMAR MEHTA v. PUSHPA GOYAL & ORS The Rent Control Appeal Court set aside the lower court's order dismissing the tenant's application, finding the lower court failed to follow proper legal procedure under the UP Urban Property (Rent, Control and Eviction) Act, 2021. The court held that the tenant's application cited multiple statutory provisions (Sections 8, 4, 10, 21(2)(a)) but the lower court did not clarify under which specific provision relief was being sought before dismissing it, violating procedural requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts