Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Yash Pal Juneja v. Satish Kumar Sandooja
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
Civil Revision No.3248 of 2008
Yash Pal Juneja
v.
Satish Kumar Sandooja
{Decided on 30/05/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amrit Lal Jain, Advocate.
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--Bonafide need--Bonafides of land lord cannot be doubted on the strength of conjectures and surmises—Held;
i) Tenant cannot dictate terms for his land lord as to how the latter can adjust him without asking for eviction of the tenanted premises.
ii) Even if an alternative accommodation is available, it is for the landlord to decide as to how and in what manner he should fulfill his requirements.
iii) However a tenant cannot be asked to vacate a premises on mere desire of land lord--|Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13(3) (Para 13)
(B) Rent Law--Eviction--Bonafide need--Shop--Premises is required by the land lord to start his own business--Other shop owned and run by landlord’s father--No material to show that he is inclined to land over the shop and business in favour of the landlord only ignoring his other children--Eviction of tenant upheld--|Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13(3) (Para 14)
———————
Som Nath v. Pankaj
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 805
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Revision No.5518 of 2008 (O&M)
Som Nath
v.
Pankaj
{Decided on 17/10/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/Caveators: Mr. Suryakant Gautam, Advocate.
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--Personal necessity--Shop--Both brothers have joint business of Karyana shop--They want to part gracefully and to start independent business--Tenant cannot urge that they are barred from doing so on account on account of his hardship--Need of landlord is to be taken into consideration--Eviction order affirmed--|Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13(3) (a) (i) (Paras 7 & 8)
(B) Rent Law--Eviction--Appeal--High Court cannot act as a Court of second appeal--The Court can only come to the rescue of the petitioner in case order passed by the Courts below is perverse, perfunctory or the finding arrived at is palpably erroneous--|Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 15(6) (Para 6)
———————
Parkash v. Kale Ram (deceased) through L.Rs.
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989 and R.F.A. No. 2622 of 1989
Parkash
v.
Kale Ram (deceased) through L.Rs.
{Decided on 16/10/2008}
Present: Mr. Harminderjit Singh, Advocate for the Appellants in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989:
Mr. Manmohan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate for the Appellants in R.F.A. No. 2622 of 1989 and for respondent No.1 in R.F.A. No. 1473 of 1989.
Mr. Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate for Parkash, Jagdish and Jeetu.
Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State.
Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No.4 in R.F.A. No. 2622 of 1989.
Land and Property Law--Acquisition of Land--Compensation--Entitlement of--Power of attorney holder--Respondent claiming himself to be the owner of property on the basis of irrevocable power of attorney--Executor of attorney claimed ownership stating that they had revoked the power of attorney--Parties rightly relegated to Civil Court for determination of their rights--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 30. (Paras 15 & 16)
————————