Civil Revision No. 4650 of 2005. Case: Amar Nath and Ors. Vs Munish Kumar and Anr.. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | Civil Revision No. 4650 of 2005 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. J.R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kashmir Singh , Advs.and For Respondents: Mr. Munish Jolly for the Respondent No. 1 |
| Judges | V.K. Sharma, J. |
| Issue | East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 - Sections 13, 13(1)(a)(i), 13(3)(a)(i); Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 - Section 12 |
| Citation | 2007 (48) CivilCC (P&H) |
| Judgement Date | January 24, 2007 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
-
The petitioner by way of present revision petition has challenged the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, Sangrur allowing the application moved by the respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act).
-
The respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the petitioners from one shop. It was the case of the respondent-landlord that previously Ashok Kumar, father of the applicant was owner and landlord of the shop in dispute wherein Amar Nath and Pawan Kumar were inducted as tenants at annual rent of Rs.2,900/-. It was claimed that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between Ashok Kumar and the petitioners. It was also claimed by the respondent that in pursuance to the oral family settlement between Ashok Kumar and his family members in the year 1996, the disputed shop was given to the respondent-landlord. The said oral family settlement was reduced into writing by way of memorandum of family settlement and thus, the respondent-landlord being the owner became the landlord of the premises qua the petitioner. The ejectment of the petitioners was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of personal necessity.
-
The petition was contested by the petitioners herein who denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and contested the claim of the respondent for eviction on the ground of personal necessity. It was also the case of the petitioner-tenants that the landlord did not comply with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act as ingredients of Section 13 were not pleaded or proved regarding occupation of any other building in the urban area. The said averments in the written statement were controverted by the respondent- landlord by filing replication and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-
-
Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPA
-
Whether the respondents have not paid rent due and house tax to the applicant since 01.10.1991? OPA
-
Whether the applicant is entitled to recover house tax from the respondents? OPA
-
Whether the applicant requires the shop in dispute for his personal use and necessity? OPA
-
Whether the present applicant is not maintainable? OPR
-
Whether the applicant has no right or locus standi to file the present application? OPR
-
Relief.
-
Learned Rent Controller decided...
To continue reading
Request your trial