Allowed

Jatinder Nath Purang v. Kehar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Apr 2009CR/5915/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing a tenant restoration application. It directed the Rent Controller to revive the Section 13-A suit and dispose of the case expeditiously within six months since it had been pending since 1997.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dismissing the restoration application; directed restoration of the petition and disposal of the case expeditiously within six months.

Jatinder Nath Purang Vs Kehar Singh — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No.5915 of 2007 Date of decision:17.04.2009

Jatinder Nath Purang

...Petitioner

versus

Kehar Singh

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN

¶10

Present: Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶13

To be referred to the reporters or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?

¶15

K.KANNAN, J. (Oral)

¶16

The decision is against the order dismissing an application for restoration filed at the instance of the landlord. The main petition had been filed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The case appears to have been posted on 22.07.1998 and it had been adjourned to 24.08.1998. Neither the landlord nor his counsel appeared on the date and it was dismissed for default of appearance. An application was filed for restoration stating that the counsel had wrongly noted the date on 22.07.1998 as 22.09.1998. Hence, he and his counsel were absent on that date. The application for restoration was ultimately dismissed. According to the Rent Controller sufficient evidence has not offered and that it was time barred.

¶17

Civil Revision No.5915 of 2007 - 2 -

¶18

It is a case where the case has been dismissed for default of appearance and the reason stated was the mistake by his counsel in recording wrong date. This reason must have been good enough to give an opportunity to a landlord to prosecute the case on merits. In my view, the Court has adopted a narrow and technical view of the matter when justice would have been best done by affording an opportunity to the party/landlord to prosecute the case.

¶19

Under the circumstances, I deem it a fit case to set aside the order of the Rent Controller and direct the restoration of the petition which has been filed under Section 13-A and dispose of the case in the process known to law. The party shall appear before the Rent Controller on 08.05.2009 and the Court shall proceed to entertain any application moved at the instance of the tenant as the law may permit and continue with the proceedings as per the relevant provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The Rent Controller will have due consideration of the fact that the case has been pending since 1997 and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of this order.

¶20

17.04.2009 sanjeev

¶21

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE

Jatinder Nath Purang v. Kehar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatinder Nath Purang v. Kehar 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

Surinder Mohan Vs Rattan Chand and Another

Rattan Chand Vs Surinder Mohan

Jaspal Singh Vs Yashpal

Sukhdeep Singh Jhikka Vs Ajit Singh Deogan and Ors.

Mohan Lal Vs I S Gill

Paramjit Singh Vs Bimla Devi and Ors.