Dharampal v. Harjit Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 837
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.4045 of 2005 (O&M) and C.R. No. 4046 of 2005 (O&M)
Dharampal
v.
Harjit Singh
{Decided on 27/01/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate and Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Rent--In absence of rent deed payment of rents and receipt therefore would have provided best substitute for evidence of such relationship.
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--Maintainability of--Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant--Eviction ordered on basis of requirement of sons filing cases in their own right was clearly untenable it father could not have Maintained the petition for obstacles of his ownership and occupation of several other buildings--Admission by petitioner that his father used to receive rent and issue receipt--No tenancy in writing between petitioner and tenant--Petition for eviction at instance of sons not maintainable--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3) (Para 4 & 5)
(B) Rent Law--Jural relationship between landlord and tenant--In absence of rent deed payment of rents and receipt therefore would have provided best substitute for evidence of such relationship--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3) (Para 3)
(C) Rent Law--Eviction--Existence of relationship between landlord and tenant--Father of petitioner receiving rent till filing of petition--Nothing to show that father had directed attorment of the tenant to his sons after mutation of revenue entries took place in the names of his sons-- No proof that petitioners issued any notice prior to filing of petition about case of transfer and justifying their entitlement with consent of admitted landlord that rent could be paid to them--Petition at instance of petitioners sons not maintainable--Order of eviction set aside--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3) (Para 3 & 5)
--------------
Rajinder Singh Bhatti v. State of Haryana
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 839 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha
Civil Appeal Nos. 4117-4118 of 2001
Rajinder Singh Bhatti
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 03/03/2009}
IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of Land--Lapse of acquisition proceedings in the circumstances under Section 11-A cannot and would not amount to withdrawal from acquisition by the government under Section 48(1).
Acquisition of Land--Decision of the government for withdrawal from acquisition has to be published in the official gazette.
(A) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of Land--Award--Whether in view of the decision of the government in not approving the award proposed by the Collector, the award could not be made within the period of two years from the date of publication of declaration (final notification under Section 6) and the acquisition of land lapsed, would such lapse of acquisition proceedings amount to withdrawal from the acquisition by the State Government under Section 48(1) of the Act? Held, NO--Lapse of acquisition proceedings in the circumstances under Section 11-A cannot and would not amount to withdrawal from acquisition by the government under Section 48(1)--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 11A and 48(1). (Para 15 and 26)
(B) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of Land--Whether the decision of the State Government for withdrawal from the acquisition under Section 48 (1) is mandatorily required to be published in the official gazette ?--Held; YES--Act provides for the publication of notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in official gazette--Obviously the withdrawal from land acquisition proceedings by taking resort to Section 48(1) of the Act also must be in the like manner--Decision of the government for withdrawal from acquisition has to be published in the official gazette--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 11A and 48(1). (Para 27 and 28)
----------------
Parkash Chand v. Municipal Corp., Faridabad
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann
Civil Revision No. 3643 of 2008
Parkash Chand
v.
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad
{Decided on 18/12/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1 & 2: Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate.
Municipal Law-- Recovery of balance auction money--Stay of--Plaintiff obtained contract of parking stand and deposited ¼th of the auction money at time of auction--But failed to deposit remaining auction money within 7 days of auction--Plaintiff run parking stand for entire term of contract by charging for parking--Plaintiff did not deposited remaining amount even after notice is issued under Section 128 of Haryana Municipal Corporation Act--Under these circumstance Municipal Corporation left with no other option but to proceed under 1994 to recover remaining amount of auction money--No illegality--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rules 1 & 2--Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, Sections 130, 374 (Para 9 & 10)
----------------