Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Jai Singh v. Sardar Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Civil Revision No. 1289 of 2004 (O&M)
Jai Singh
v.
Sardar Singh
{Decided on 21/01/2009}
For the Petitioner: Ms. Mamta Malik, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Correction of decree--Some mistake in description of property in plaint--Identity of property not in dispute--It is a case of clerical inadvertent error which does not affect the merits of the case and can be corrected.
Civil Procedure--Correction of decree and judgment--Suit for declaration that he was owner of suit property--Some mistake in description of property in plaint--Identity of property not in dispute--Fact that property was sold in open auction to petitioner and he was in continuous possession not in dispute--Held; That it is a case of clerical inadvertent error which does not affect the merits of the case and can be corrected--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 152. (Paras 11, 12, 13 & 14)
-------------
M/s Bombay Motors v. Smt. Bhagwanti
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.5397 of 1999 (O&M)
M/s Bombay Motors
v.
Smt. Bhagwanti
{Decided on 27/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L Sareen, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Alka Sareen and Ms. Himani Sarin.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Advocate with Mr. R.K. Gautam, Advocate and Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate.
For the LRs of respondent No.1: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Suraj Parkash, Advocate and Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction--Material alteration--Order sought on resumption order by authorities--Said order set aside--Eviction cannot be sought on same ground.
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--Material alteration--Specific instances of alleged material alteration that were made basis of eviction not proved--Rent Controller and appellate authority committed serious error in rooting petition for eviction not on proof of so-called alterations made by tenants but by action of authorities that resulted in resumption orders--Resumption order itself contained reference to statement of landlord that no action was done either by her or her tenant that could justify an act of resumption and ultimate order of Authorities was withdraw of resumption it would be untenable to order eviction on such ground--Tenant not liable to be evicted--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. (Paras 7 & 8)
(B) Rent Law--Eviction--Subletting--Sub-tenancy made long before commencement of Act--Contention that since particular year of sub-tenancy was not clearly established tenant must be presumed to have made sub-tenancy subsequent to commencement of the Act--Not tenable--Tenant not liable for eviction. (Para 10)
-------------------