AMIT KUMAR S/O OM PRAKASH vs PUSHPA GOYAL W/O BRIJNANDAN GOYAL — 216/2025

Case under Rent Recovery Act Section 35. Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 12th May 2026.

Misc. Civil Appeal

CNR: UPSP010130302025

Case disposed

Filing Number

896/2025

Filing Date

04-10-2025

Registration No

216/2025

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

Rent Recovery Act Section 35

Petitioner(s)

AMIT KUMAR S/O OM PRAKASH

Adv. ANIL KUMAR VERMA

Respondent(s)

PUSHPA GOYAL W/O BRIJNANDAN GOYAL

Hearing History

Judge: 5-Additional District Judge, C.R. No.1

12-05-2026

Disposed

04-05-2026

For Order

01-05-2026

hearing

27-04-2026

hearing

24-04-2026

hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

12-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: 216/2025 Amit Kumar v. Pushpa Goyal & Ors. The Rent Control Appeal Court in Saharanpur set aside the lower court's order dated 04-09-2025, finding that the presiding judge failed to properly examine the legal provisions cited in the tenant's petition before disposing of the case. The appellant-landlord had sought clarification on which statutory provisions under the UP Urban Property (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act, 2021 the petitioner was invoking for relief. The court held that since different sections (8, 10, 4, 21(2)(A)) carry distinct procedural requirements and remedies, the petitioner must clearly specify which provision governs the case before evidence is heard. The appeal was allowed, the prior order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for proper adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 216/2025 Amit Kumar v. Pushpa Goyal & Ors. The Rent Control Appeal Court in Saharanpur set aside the lower court's order dated 04-09-2025, finding that the presiding judge failed to properly examine the legal provisions cited in the tenant's petition before disposing of the case. The appellant-landlord had sought clarification on which statutory provisions under the UP Urban Property (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act, 2021 the petitioner was invoking for relief. The court held that since different sections (8, 10, 4, 21(2)(A)) carry distinct procedural requirements and remedies, the petitioner must clearly specify which provision governs the case before evidence is heard. The appeal was allowed, the prior order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for proper adjudication. 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