Allowed

Jarnail Singh v. Harjinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Apr 2009CR/1641/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The Court affirmed the lower order but granted the petitioner six months to vacate the premises, issue an undertaking, and clear outstanding dues.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted time upto 2.10.2009 to vacate, directed to clear outstanding arrears and pay rent in advance for that period.

Jarnail Singh Vs Harjinder Singh — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No. 1641 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 2, 2009

Jarnail Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

Harjinder Singh

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present : Mr. Paul S.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Ashish Pal Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent-Caveator.

¶11

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

¶12

Petition filed by the respondent under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in question was allowed by learned Rent Controller, Balachaur, vide judgment dated 27.1.2009. Aggrieved of the same, the tenant has filed the present revision under Section15(5) read with Section 18(8) of the Act.

¶13

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in case a year's time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises, he would not challenge the findings arrived at by the learned Rent Controller.

¶14

C.R. No. 1641 of 2009 -2-

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent states that the ejectment petition was filed by the respondent on 17.12.2007, which was decided on 27.1.2009. Already, the petitioner is continuing to be in occupation of the tenanted shop for the last about more than 2 months after the decision arrived at by the learned Rent Controller.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be granted a period of six months from today so as to vacate the rented premises and for making alternative arrangements for setting up his business of running a sweet shop.

¶17

Resultantly, order passed by the Rent Controller, Balachaur, is affirmed. However, the petitioner is granted time upto 2.10.2009 to vacate the tenanted premises. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Rent Controller, Balachaur, within two weeks from today and give an undertaking in writing that he shall vacate the tenanted premised on or before 2.10.2009. Simultaneously, the petitioner is directed to clear all the outstanding arrears of rent, if any, besides paying the rent in advance for the tenanted premises for the period upto 2.10.2009.

¶18

The revision is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶19

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

¶20

April 2, 2009 ajay-1

Jarnail Singh v. Harjinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarnail Singh v. Harjinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Narain Vs Mr. Dharamvir, Chief Secy & Ors.

Raja Ram Malik etc. Vs P.K. Dass etc.

Rupinder Preet Kaur Vs S.K. Asthana etc.

Ashwani Kumar and Anr. Vs Mati Ram and Ors.

Harsharan Singh Vs Sudhanshu S. Srivastava

Lakhwinder Kaur Vs Anil Gupta