Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Baldev Parshad v. Raj Kumar
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 768
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.3327 of 1993
Baldev Parshad
v.
Raj Kumar
{Decided on 13/01/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Himani Sarin, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Subletting--Means person to whom property was originally tenanted had subsequently created a sub-tenancy in favour of another person--If first tenancy itself is not accepted plea of sub-tenancy cannot stick.
(A) Rent Law--Second petition--Maintainability of--First petition of landlord dismissed for non-prosecution--Landlord without taking any permission for prosecuting filed another petition on same ground--Second petition not maintainable. (Para 2)
(B) Rent Law--Subletting--Property rented out to first respondent’s husband--Second respondent/revision petitioner associated in business with first respondent’s husband as partner--They carried on business till 1979--Payment of rent by second respondent from 1979 not denied--Mere contention that rent had been tendered on behalf of first respondent’s husband not acceptable--Plea of subletting not proved--Order of ejectment set-aside. (Para 3 & 4)
(C) Rent Law--Eviction--Subletting--Meaning--Person to whom property was originally tenanted had subsequently created a sub-tenancy in favour of another person--If first tenancy itself is not accepted plea of sub-tenancy cannot stick. (Para 3)
--------------------
Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Crl. Revision No. 237 of 2009
Jagjit Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 05/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Sodhi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
(A) Criminal Law--Revisional Jurisdiction--Appeal against acquittal--Material discrepancies regarding date and time of occurrence--Eye witnesses failed to show place of occurrence to police--Reasons given by learned appellate Court while acquitting accused are sound--No interference called for--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 401(3)--Penal Code, 1860, Section 427. (Para 3)
(B) Criminal Law--Revisional Jurisdiction--Mischief--Appeal against acquittal--Revisional jurisdiction against order of acquittal at instance of complainant has to be exercised by High Court only in very exceptional cases where High Court finds defect or procedure of manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 401 (3). (Para 4)
----------------