Civil Revision Court stayed the eviction of the petitioner from a commercial property for three months to allow him to approach the Supreme Court regarding pending legal questions on personal necessity grounds.
Eviction stayed for a period of three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6220 of 2008 Date of decision: 4th December, 2008
Krishan Lal
… Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Kunta Devi and another
… Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Counsel for the petitioner contends that he will not be challenging the findings of fact recorded by two courts below, but he confine himself to the legal issue that a tenant cannot be evicted on the ground of personal necessity from a commercial property. He further submits that in case of commercial property, heavy onus is cast upon the landlord to plead his case in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Counsel further states that validity of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in ‘ Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab and another’ , AIR 1996 Supreme Court 857 is pending for consideration before Hon'ble Apex Court in ‘Kamla Devi v. Preeto and others’ in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8200 of 2006. He states that in the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Kamla Devi v. Preeto in Civil Revision No.4707 of 2004, relying upon Harbilas Rai Bansal’s case (supra), it was held that tenant can be evicted from the commercial property on ground of personal necessity. Counsel states that since on this vital issue, Hon'ble Apex Court is seized of the matter, he be also granted opportunity to address his arguments before the Hon'ble Apex Court and three months time be granted to him to
2
Civil Revision No. 6220 of 2008
approach the Hon'ble Apex Court and his eviction be stayed for a period of three months.
Since the counsel for the petitioner is not challenging the findings of fact recorded by two courts below, but is confining himself to the legal issues, which as per his submission is pending for consideration of Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner be not evicted for a period of three months in order to enable him to avail his lawful remedy.
With these observations present revision petition is disposed
off.
December 4, 2008 rps
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the eviction of a tenant from a commercial property on grounds of personal necessity should be stayed pending consideration of a related constitutional matter by the Apex Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶10
AIR 1996 Supreme Court 857 · Who else cites this
Kamla Devi v. PreetoReferred¶10
Civil Revision No.4707 of 2004
Krishan Lal
Mrs. Kunta Devi
Kanwalsingh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
