East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949

S.13--Ejectment--Bonafide Necessity--Respondent and his parents made purchase of tenanted premises--Respondent is practicing advocate and is recently married--Claim of respondent for being in occupation of tenanted premises in his own right and on part of his parents to settle him independently not unnatural--Ejectment upheld. ; DR. Pawan Kumar Bansal v. Gaurav Garg & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 817
S.13--Ejectment--Co-owner--Petition filed by co-owner--Other co-owner never objected to maintainability of ejectment petition--Eviction petition is maintainable.; DR. Pawan Kumar Bansal v. Gaurav Garg ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 817
S.13--Ejectment--Non payment of Rent--Tenant denied existence of relationship of landlord-tenant--Rent Controller recorded findings in favour of landlord on part of existence of relationship--No justification to grant of opportunity to tenant to deposit arrears of rent.; DR. Pawan Kumar Bansal v. Gaurav Garg & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 817

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949

S.13--Ejectment--Bonafide Necessity--Respondent and his parents made purchase of tenanted premises--Respondent is practicing advocate and is recently married--Claim of respondent for being in occupation of tenanted premises in his own right and on part of his parents to settle him independently not unnatural--Ejectment upheld. ; DR. Pawan Kumar Bansal v. Gaurav Garg & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 817
S.13--Ejectment--Co-owner--Petition filed by co-owner--Other co-owner never objected to maintainability of ejectment petition--Eviction petition is maintainable.; DR. Pawan Kumar Bansal v. Gaurav Garg ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 817
S.13--Ejectment--Non payment of Rent--Tenant denied existence of relationship of landlord-tenant--Rent Controller recorded findings in favour of landlord on part of existence of relationship--No justification to grant of opportunity to tenant to deposit arrears of rent.; DR. Pawan Kumar Bansal v. Gaurav Garg & Anr., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 817

EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949

S.13--Ejectment--Non-payment of Rent--Execution of rent note proved--Non production of account books by landlord have no significance--Ejectment ordered.; Jain Charitable (free) Eye Hospital, Jind v. Kharati Lal, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 734
S.13--Ejectment--Non-payment of Rent--Rate of Rent--Entry in house tax assessment record--No presumption of correctness can be attached--Inspector who conducted survey for purpose of assessment of house tax not examined at trial--Entry in house tax assessment record cannot relied for rate of rent.; Jain Charitable (free) Eye Hospital, Jind v. Kharati Lal, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 734
S.13--Ejectment--Non-payment of Rent--Rent note--Terms and conditions of rent agreements duly documented in form of rent notes--Execution of rent note proved by testimony on oath by son of deceased deed writer and also an attesting witness beside statement made by handwriting and fingerprint expert--Tenants failed to prove plea that their signatures were obtained on blank stamp paper--Ejectment ordered.; Jain Charitable (free) Eye Hospital, Jind v. Kharati Lal, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 734

EAST PUNJAB HOLDINGS (CONSOLIDATION PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION) RULES, 1949

R.18--East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, S.42 and 44--Natural justice--Jurisdiction of Civil Court--Whenever principles of natural justice are violated, order becomes nullity and civil Court gets jurisdiction even otherwise there is bar to jurisdiction of Civil Court--Plaintiffs nos. 1 to 9 not made party to application filed by defendant under Section 42--No notice of said application or opportunity of hearing was given to plaintiffs 1 to 9--Thus, mandatory provision of provision to Section 42 violated--Therefore, Civil Court has jurisdiction notwithstanding bar of jurisdiction created under Section 44.; Joginder Nath alias Joginder Pal v. Sat Pal & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 742
S.18--East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, S.42 and 44--Re-opening of partition--Delay of 25 years for filing application under Section 42--On ground that he was posted out of his village since 1953 to 1979--This vague, general and specious ground by defendant no.1 for condonation of delay of 25 years cannot be accepted--In addition plaintiff no.10 and defendant no.2 purchased land from original allottee were bonofide purchaser for consideration--They cannot be made to suffer merely because defendant no.1 opted to move application under Section 42 of Act more than quarter century after repartition scheme had been finalised on 1.11.1953--Order of Director, Consolidation Holding unsustainable. ; Joginder Nath alias Joginder Pal v. Sat Pal & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 742
S.42 and 44--East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, S.18--Re-opening of partition--Delay of 25 years for filing application under Section 42--On ground that he was posted out of his village since 1953 to 1979--This vague, general and specious ground by defendant no.1 for condonation of delay of 25 years cannot be accepted--In addition plaintiff no.10 and defendant no.2 purchased land from original allottee were bonofide purchaser for consideration--They cannot be made to suffer merely because defendant no.1 opted to move application under Section 42 of Act more than quarter century after repartition scheme had been finalised on 1.11.1953--Order of Director, Consolidation Holding unsustainable. ; Joginder Nath alias Joginder Pal v. Sat Pal & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 742
S.42 and 44--East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 Rule 18--Natural justice--Jurisdiction of Civil Court--Whenever principles of natural justice are violated, order becomes nullity and civil Court gets jurisdiction even otherwise there is bar to jurisdiction of Civil Court--Plaintiffs nos. 1 to 9 not made party to application filed by defendant under Section 42--No notice of said application or opportunity of hearing was given to plaintiffs 1 to 9--Thus, mandatory provision of provision to Section 42 violated--Therefore, Civil Court has jurisdiction notwithstanding bar of jurisdiction created under Section 44.; Joginder Nath alias Joginder Pal v. Sat Pal & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 742
S.42 and 44--Plaintiffs claimed to be bonafide purchasers of suit land from original allottees or their vendees--Question of title arose--Director, Consolidation of Holding has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon said question of title--Order passed by Director, Consolidation holdings is unsustainable.; Joginder Nath alias Joginder Pal v. Sat Pal & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 742

EAST PUNJAB RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949

S.13--Ejectment--Bonafide necessity--It is for landlord to decide what exactly would he like to do with commercial premises owned by him subject to proof of bonafides on his part--Fact that landlord filed petition within about one year of his retirement would not draw inference that need put forward by him was not bonafide--Also, landlord does not require particular expertise in business of cloth which he wanted to start in tenanted premises--Order of ejectment upheld.; M/s Mukandi Lal Sat Narain v. Sham Lal & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 621
S.13--Eviction--Co-owner--Mesne Profit--No declaratory suit is required to be filed by co-owner prior to filing a suit for eviction against a person in unauthorized occupation--It was for appellant/defendants to prove that landlord of appellants had any title in property or that he was co-owner--Once it is proved that landlord of appellant sold his share and was no longer co-sharer of property in dispute learned Courts justified in ordering eviction in absence of declaratory decree of his status--Co-owner under law is entitled to seek eviction of a person whether in unauthorized occupation or tenant.; Mohammad Ikhlaq & Ors. v. Alok Gupta & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 595

Rent Law--Eviction--NRI Landlord--Boan fide requirement

2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Revision No. 6564 of 2008
Khushal Chand
v.
Jaspal Singh
{Decided on 28/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate.
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--NRI Landlord--Boan fide requirement--Specifically mentioned in eviction petition that he intend to come back to India and start his business--Therefore, there was no necessity to give all the minute details--It is also not required that the landlord should file project report of the business which he intends to start--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-B. (Para 4)
(B) Rent Law--Eviction--NRI landlord--Since the application has been filed by the tenant, the landlord filed reply to the application for leave to defend through his attorney, it is not expected that till case is decided landlord should stay in India.--No fault can be found with the same--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13-B. (Para 6)

Rent controller recording finding under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act--Same are not binding on the Civil Court

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 81
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
C.R.No.3647 of 2009
Jarnail Singh
v.
Gurmail Singh
{Decided on 17/11/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M/s Ashok Singla and Ravnish Bansal, Advocates.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.11--Resjudicata--Rent controller recording finding under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act--Same are not binding on the Civil Court--Does not operate as resjudicata--The Civil Court is a Court of plenary jurisdiction and all questions between the parties are liable to be decided by the Civil Court alone. (P.8)

Ejectment--Bonafide Necessity--In absence of any evidence to effect that landlord aged 80 years has frail health it cannot be assumed that he would not able to undertake agricultural job and run business simultaneously

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. D. Anand
Civil Revision No. 2123 of 2008
Dalip Singh
v.
Gurdev Singh
{Decided on 21/01/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Ejectment--Bonafide Necessity--In absence of any evidence to effect that landlord aged 80 years has frail health it cannot be assumed that he would not able to undertake agricultural job and run business simultaneously.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Ejectment--Bonafide Necessity--Landlord requires premises to run business of fertilizers and cattle feed--8-9 acres of land is not big an area which could said to be adequate enough to keep land owner through out day and all along in year particularly when petitioner cultivates that land with tractor--Business of cattle feed and fertilizers is akin to agriculture--Infact, tenanted premises are being utilised by tenant in running that business only--In absence of any evidence to effect that landlord aged 80 years has frail health it cannot be assumed that he would not able to undertake agricultural job and run business simultaneously--Negativing of plea of bonafide necessity by both Courts not in order--Implicit reliance placed upon advance age of landlord not appropriate--Tenant ordered to be ejected from tenanted premises. (P.4, 5, 6 & 7)

Ejectment--Bonafide necessity--Landlady required premises in order to look after her married daughter who has handicapped husband and also other members of her-in-law family

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 407
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. D. Anand
Civil Revision No. 1955 of 2008
Kanta Rani
v.
Ashok Kumar
{Decided on 18/01/2010}
For the Petitioner: Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate for Mr. Sushma Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. A.S, Gill, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Ejectment--Bonafide necessity--Landlady required premises in order to look after her married daughter who has handicapped husband and also other members of her-in-law family--A decree of ejectment cannot be validly declined to landlady just because her daughter is happen to be married--Landlady has no other family member to support or look after--Son-in-law of landlady was suffering from 100% disability--Ejectment ordered.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Ejectment--Bonafide necessity--Landlady required premises in order to look after her married daughter who has handicapped husband and also other members of her-in-law family--Her averment cannot be said to be suffering from want of bonafides just because her daughter happens to be married--A decree of ejectment cannot be validly declined to landlady on above count--Landlady has no other family member to support or look after--Son-in-law of landlady was suffering from 100% disability--Order of trial Court of ejectment restored and reversal thereof by learned appellate authority set aside. (P.8 & 11)

Tenant adopted illegitimate measure and took recourse to various litigation to delay delivery of possession

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007
Het Ram
v.
Virbhan
{Decided on 11/11/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction--Compromise--Delay in delivery of possession--Misuse of process of law by tenant--Cost--Tenant adopted illegitimate measure and took recourse to various litigation to delay delivery of possession--Landlord remained unsuccessful in getting possession for 17 years without his fault--Tenant misused process of law--Revision petition of tenant dismissed with special cost of Rs.50,000/-.
(A) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13(2) (i)--Eviction--Compromise--Delay in--Delivery of possession--Execution--Misuse of process of law by tenant--Cost--Rent controller ordered ejectment vide order dated 19.8.1997--During appeal tenant compromised the matter accepted order of ejectment and under took 6 years to handover possession on 30.11.2004--But instead of handing over possession tenant in order to delay delivery of possession took recourse of various litigations and misused the process of law--Landlord filed execution petition on 26.2.2005 in which tenant filed objection which were dismissed on 10.3.2007--Appeal filed by tenant also dismissed on 11.4.2007 with special cost of Rs.5000/-.--Present revision petition filed by tenant contending that area where disputed premises is situated was taken out of purview of Municipal Area on 2.3.2000 and as such provisions of rent were not applicable and therefore Rent Controller was not justified in entertaining execution petition not tenable--Held that provisions of Rent Act were fully applicable when ejection petition was filed and when ejectment by tenant was accepted by tenant in appeal then subsequent change will not in any way affect right acquired to landlord--Revision petition dismiss with special cost of Rs.5000/-.
(B) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Eviction--Compromise--Delay in delivery of possession--Misuse of process of law by tenant--Cost--Landlord roaming around the matter since 12.9.1992 when ejectment petition was filed--Tenant adopted illegitimate measure and took recourse to various litigation to delay delivery of possession--Landlord remained unsuccessful in getting possession for 17 years without his fault--Thus, tenant misused process of law--Revision petition of tenant dismissed with special cost of Rs.50,000/-. (P.20)
------------

Correct interpretation of bonafide requirement of a landlord of a residential building must include a non-residential building.

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC) 241
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar
Civil Appeal No. 8417 of 2009
Ashok Kumar
v.
Ved Prakash
{Decided on 17/12/2009}
For the Appellant : Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. G.D. Rustagi and Anis Ahmed Khan, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction--Amendment of Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Act restricting the landlord from seeking eviction of a tenant from non-residential premises held, as unconstitutional--Correct interpretation of bonafide requirement of a landlord of a residential building must include a non-residential building.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973--Eviction--Bonafide requirement--Whether the landlord would be entitled to evict his tenant from a non-residential premises on the ground of bonafide requirement when Section 13 of the Act provides for eviction of the tenant only in case of residential building if the landlord requires it for his own occupation, and is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in the said urban area?Held , Yes--Rent Controller allowed the application for eviction and held that original landlord had successfully proved his bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises--High Court affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller--Appeal--Amendment of Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Act restricting the landlord from seeking eviction of a tenant from non-residential premises held, as unconstitutional--Correct interpretation of bonafide requirement of a landlord of a residential building must include a non-residential building--Appeal dismissed.
(P. 6, 19 & 20)

Rent controller recording finding under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act--Same are not binding on the Civil Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
C.R.No.3647 of 2009
Jarnail Singh
v.
Gurmail Singh
{Decided on 17/11/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M/s Ashok Singla and Ravnish Bansal, Advocates.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.11--Resjudicata--Rent controller recording finding under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act--Same are not binding on the Civil Court--Does not operate as resjudicata--The Civil Court is a Court of plenary jurisdiction and all questions between the parties are liable to be decided by the Civil Court alone. (P.8)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Ejectment--Bonafide requirement

(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 77
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision No.3064 of 2007
Pawan Kumar Mittal
v.
Girdhari Lal Saroya
{Decided on 25/11/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shailender Sharma and Mr. Jashan Preet Gill, Advocates.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.13--Ejectment--Bonafide requirement--Landlord proved that bonafide required demised premises for running business after his retirement--Both Courts below currently ordered ejectment of tenant in right perspective--Order of ejectment affirmed. (P.20 & 21)

-------------