2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC) 1937
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam
Civil Appeal No.4578 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2156 of 2007)
Nand Kishore
v.
Yashpal Singh
{Decided on 21/07/2009}
IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction--Penalty--Conversion of Residential building to non residential building--Contention that for violation of Section only penalty can be imposed ,eviction cannot be ordered--Contention rejected
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--Conversion of Residential building to non residential building--Landlord gave residential building for residential purpose--Tenant thereafter used it for commercial purpose without written consent of rent controller--Tenant contended it was tenancy for commercial purpose by mutual consent--Contention rejected in view of bar under section 11 of the Act and Development and Regulation Act--Eviction ordered--East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949--Section 13(2)(ii)(b).
(B) Rent Law--Eviction--Penalty--Conversion of Residential building to non residential building--Contention that for violation of Section only penalty can be imposed ,eviction cannot be ordered--Contention rejected--Held; the tenant or the landlord can be punished with fine under Section 19 of the Act and at the same time the tenant can be evicted under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act if the conditions laid down in the said sections are satisfied. That apart if violation of Section 11 of the Act results in fine under Section 19 of the Act, in that case the tenants who have violated the provisions of Section 11 of the Act could get away from eviction only by paying fine that may be imposed upon them--East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(2)(ii)(b), 11 and 19.
----------------
Baldev Singh v. Kulbir Singh & Ors.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
RSA No. 4369 of 2006 and RSA No. 4370 of 2006
Baldev Singh
v.
Kulbir Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 23/07/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. V.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Sheokand, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Adverse Possession--A permissive possession at inception does not become adverse merely by passing of long time in the absence of requisite animus.
Adverse Possession--No presumption of fact can be drawn in favour of a person claiming adverse possession.
(A) Limitation Law--Adverse Possession--Permanent injunction--Plaintiff got possession of suit property on basis of agreement to sell and continued to remain in possession--Sale deed was not executed in his favour--In these circumstance possession of plaintiff was permissive--Plaintiff failed to establish that he had become owner by way of adverse possession--Counter claim by defendant seeking possession rightly decreed as permission was refused by competent authority to sell suit property--Limitation Act, 1963.
(B) Limitation Law--Adverse Possession--In order to prove that the possession of the plaintiff was adverse, there must be a specific pleading of disclaiming title from a particular date, hostile assertion thereof and setting up of adverse possession from a particular date to the knowledge of true owner and his acquiescence for the long continuous uninterrupted period--A permissive possession at inception does not become adverse merely by passing of long time in the absence of requisite animus--Burden is always on the person claiming adverse possession--A person whose possession can be referred to a lawful title will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another’s titled. In the absence of specific pleading of all the necessary ingredients, plea of adverse possession has to fail--No presumption of fact can be drawn in favour of a person claiming adverse possession. There is no equity in favour of such person--Limitation Act, 1963. (Para 11)
--------------
Rani Devi & Ors. v. Shakuntla Devi & Ors.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1946
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Civil Rev. No. 2349 of 2001
Rani Devi & Ors.
v.
Shakuntla Devi & Ors.
{Decided on 17/07/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.S.Rana, Advocate with Mr. P.S. Rai, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction--Mere fact that landlord rented out one room in disputed house during pendency of case would not disentitle him from seeking eviction of tenant on ground of personal necessity.
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--Personal Necessity--Mere fact that landlord rented out one room in disputed house during pendency of case would not disentitle him from seeking eviction of tenant on ground of personal necessity--Even if alternative accommodation was available, it is for landlord to decide as to how and in what manner he should fulfil his requirement--Tenant cannot dictate terms to his landlord as to how latter should adjust his family--Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13(3)(a)(i). (Para 9)
(B) Rent Law--Eviction--Personal Necessity--Landlord having a large family of 16 members--Accommodation of two rooms absolutely insufficient--Landlord has right to seek eviction of tenant--He requires demised premises for his personal bonafide needs-- Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13(3)(a)(i). (Para 17)
------------