Disposed

Kishan Dass v. Gopi Chand

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Oct 2009CR/1786/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two revision petitions by the landlords challenging the Rent Controller's grant of leave to contest. The Court held that no interference was needed as no prejudice was caused but, considering the plaintiff's age, directed the Controller to allow only three opportunities for evidence and decide within six months.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of revision petitions with direction to limit tenant to three opportunities for evidence and decide the eviction petition within six months.

Kishan Dass Vs Gopi Chand — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CR No.1785 of 2009 & CR No.1786 of 2009

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

(1) CR No.1785 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 06.10.2009

¶6

¶7

Gurmeet Kaur . . . . Petitioner

¶8

VS.

¶9

Jugal Kishore and another . . . . Respondents

¶10

¶11

(2) CR No.1786 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 06.10.2009

¶12

¶13

Kishan Dass . . . . Petitioner VS.

¶14

Gopi Chand . . . . Respondent

¶15

¶16

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶17

****

¶18

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶19

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶20

¶21

Present: Mr. Hiten Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶22

Mr.S.K. Paruthi, Advocate for the respondent.

¶23

¶24

SURYA KANT J.(ORAL)

¶25

This order of mine shall dispose of CR No.1785 and CR No. 1786 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CR No.1785 of 2009. These revision petitions are directed by the NRI landlady against the order dated 16.07.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, granting leave to contest to the respondent-tenants in an eviction petition filed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

¶26

CR No.1785 of 2009 & CR No.1786 of 2009

¶27

¶28

The leave has been granted by the Rent Controller after observing that the respondents have raised a triable issue inasmuch as previously, the eviction petition filed against the respondent-tenant under Section 13 of the Act, including on the ground of personal necessity, was dismissed.

¶29

Having heard the counsel for the parties for some time, I am of the considered view, that no serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the impugned order. The Rent Controller has merely found that the tenant has raised some triable issues. No interference in the impugned order is, thus, called for.

¶30

However, having regard to the age of the petitioner and the legislative intent behind Section 18-A of the Act and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner-landlady has already led her evidence, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, not to grant more than 3 opportunities to the respondenttenants to lead their evidence and decide the eviction petition preferably within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶31

Disposed of.

¶32

Dasti.

¶33

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶34

06.10.2009 shonkar

Kishan Dass v. Gopi Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Dass v. Gopi Chand

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

Santosh Sharma Vs H.S. Bawa

Amarjit Singh Vs Harish Chander

Vineet Dutta Vs Pooja Dutta

Punjab Wakf Board Vs Baba Kedarnath Pradhan Polytechnic College

Gurmit Kaur Vs Jugal Kishore and Anr.

Kamal Kishore Vs Hem Raj