Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Ajit Kumar Jain v. Atul Kumar Jain
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 811
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Revision No.5631 of 2003
Ajit Kumar Jain (deceased, through LRs)
v.
Atul Kumar Jain
{Decided on 05/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction–Cease to Occupy--From the accounts it has been proved that for a period of four months only one transaction for Rs.1000/- has taken place and the electricity was disconnected and the meter reader has stated that the premises were lying closed. Report of two local Commissioners are also to same effect-- It is the conduct of the tenant, from which it can be safely inferred that the premises were closed and the tenant ceased to occupy the same. Furthermore, petitioner had occupied another shop and eviction petition was filed qua that shop and that pertains to the same relevant period when this shop was lying closed.
———————
Ruldu v. Smt. Chandrawati alias Shindo
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 815 (FC)
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB
Before
Jagpal Singh Sandhu, I.A.S.
R.O.R. No.659 of 2005
Ruldu
v.
Smt. Chandrawati alias Shindo
{Decided on 03/09/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Chathrath, Advocate proxy for Mr. D.P.S. Randhaa, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate.
Revenue Law--Ejectment of tenant--Relationship of land owner and tenant established--Default in payment of rent--Petitioner was a regular defaulter--Ejectment order rightly passed--Held; If the tenant failed to pay the rent without any sufficient cause, he was liable to be ejected--A single default in payment of rent is sufficient cause for ejectment--|Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, Section 14.
(Paras 4 & 5 )
————————
Hari Dev v. Ram Parkash
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 817 (FC)
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB
Before
Jaqpal Sinqh Sandhu, I.A.S.
R.O.R. No. 937 of 2006
Hari Dev
v.
Ram Parkash
{Decided on 24/09/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Hira. Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate.
Revenue Law--Lambardar--Appointment of--Comparative merits--Petitioner is better qualified and younger in age than the respondent--The merits of the petitioner ignored by District Collector as well as by Commissioner--Order passed by Commissioner shows that he has failed to appreciate the facts rather wrongly stated the facts--Commissioner failed to apply his mind judiciously on the facts of this case which led him to pronounce wrong order--Petition allowed--Petitioner is appointed as Lambardar--|Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, Section 16—Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 14 & 15 (Para 6)

——————