Dismissed

Baldev Raj v. Rajinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2008CR/3637/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a Civil Revision challenging an eviction order under the Rent Act based on personal necessity. Application of Supreme Court precedent upheld the eviction but granted the petitioner six months to vacate, subject to payment of arrears and rent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted six months to vacate, with undertaking to hand over possession by May 31, 2009, and pay rent arrears and monthly advance.

Baldev Raj Vs Rajinder Singh — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No. 3637 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.11.2008

Baldev Raj

....Petitioner

Versus

Rajinder Singh

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

¶9

Present: Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶11

¶12

VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)

¶13

C.M. No. 22821-CII of 2006

¶14

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India and another 2008(5) SCC 287 , this CM is disposed of.

¶15

C.R. No. 3637 of 2002

¶16

This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Authorities under the Rent Act, ordering eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute.

¶17

The respondent-landlord sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. Learned authorities have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that premises in dispute are bona fide required by the respondent-landlord for his own use and occupation.

¶18

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this being commercial premises could not be ordered to be vacated on

¶19

Civil Revision No. 3637 of 2002 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

the ground of personal necessity.

¶22

However, this plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶23

Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India and another 2008(5) SCC 287 .

¶24

Dismissed.

¶25

However, keeping in view that the petitioner is running business in the premises for the last about 25 years, he is granted six months' time from today to vacate the premises subject to his filing undertaking in this Court within 15 days from today, undertaking therein to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on or before 31^st May, 2009. This shall further be subject to payment of all the arrears of rent and continuing to pay the rent in advance by 7^th of each month during this period.

¶26

(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge

¶27

17.11.08 R.S.

Baldev Raj v. Rajinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Raj v. Rajinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramjit Singh Vs Jaswinder Singh

Amrit Kaur and Anr. Vs Surender Kaur and Ors.

Pb. Smaj Sabha Kuruk. and Another Vs HUDA and Others

State of Haryana Vs M/S.Dashmesh Woolen and Silk Mills & Ors.

Hardeep Kaur Vs Gurmail Kaur and Ors.

M/S Jewellers Khanna Sons Vs Dr. Naresh Mittal etc.