Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Baljit Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
C.W.P. No. 14201 of 2008 (O&M)
Baljit Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 20/11/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ramandeep Singh Pandher, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.1 to 4: Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
For the Respondent No.5: Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.6 to 9: Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Election of Sarpanch--When all panches were present, adjouring of meeting without any cause is not justified--Declaration of sarpanch after wards illegal.
Election Law--Election of Sarpanch--Validity of--Fraud played by Presiding Officer--Out of 9 panches 5 panches who are petitioners were present in first meeting, remaining 4 panches were not present--Said meeting was adjourned due to lack of quoram--In next meeting all 9 panches were present but Presiding officer without any justification adjourned the meeting without conducting election of sarpanche which under law he was duty bound to conduct--On next meeting Presiding Officer did not come present at venue and did not conduct election--Later on proceedings were recorded at a different place which was shown to be attended by 6 panches who elected one of them as Sarpanch--Same Presiding officer played similar fraud in another village declared one panch elected as Sarpanch without there being any election--In fact and circumstances particularily when fraud is played by Presiding Officer to election process and election of village meeting in which Sarpanch was elected quashed--|Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Section 13-A--Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994.
----------------
Khazan Singh v. Prithvi Singh Sharma
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Revision No. 3296 of 2001
Khazan Singh
v.
Prithvi Singh Sharma
{Decided on 11/12/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate.
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--Change of user--Premises let out for residential purposes--Tenant used to carry business of Band Master--Photographs showing that tenants parked their vehicle having musical instruments fixed there in--Therefore, room let out for residential purpose is changed to shop not only amount to change of user but by playing musical instruments in locality caused nuisance--Tenant liable to be evicted. (Para 14 & 17)
(B) Rent Law--Eviction--Personal necessity--Large family--Entire premises consists of eight rooms--During pendency of eviction proceedings in last 21 years family needs of landlord have grown--Landlord at present is having a son who has four children and two daughters and two sisters who visit landlord on and off--In view of large family entire premises is required by landlord--Tenant required to be evicted on ground of personal necessity. (Para 18, 19 & 20)
(C) Rent Law--Eviction--Non-payment of Rent--Deficient tender--Tenant cannot be evicted on ground of non payment of complete rent, as any deficiency in tender can be made good later by giving an opportunity to tenant. (Para 13)
----------------
Raghbir Singh v. Trust, Sainiyan Mohalla Sainipura, Rohtak
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Revision No. 6533 of 2008
Raghbir Singh
v.
Trust, Sainiyan Mohalla Sainipura, Rohtak
{Decided on 10/12/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction--Encroachment on vacant land of landlord impairs the value of utility of the property.
Rent Law--Eviction--Unauthorized constrution--Tenant who was in occupation of two shops unauthorizedly raised construction over vacant land of land lord and carve out a door in partitioned wall of premises rented out to him for having access to shops--Relationship of landlord and tenant is of a trust--Encroachment by the tenant whether amount to trespass or not, may fasten the tenant with a criminal action or a civil liability but as a tenant if he include the encroached area with the tenant premises, it certainly impairs the value and utility of the property--Petitioner also inducted subtenant without written consent of landlord--Tenant liable to be evicted--|Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13.
----------------------