Allowed

Rajinder Lal v. Gopal Krishan

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Aug 2010CR/1127/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the reframing of an issue regarding bona fide need by the Rent Controller. The Court allowed the tenant to retract the revision, permitting the landlord to withdraw the eviction petition and file a fresh one on valid grounds.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is disposed of with permission to the landlord to withdraw the eviction petition and liberty to file a fresh petition.

Rajinder Lal Vs Gopal Krishan — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.1127 of 2010

¶3

Date of decision: 18^th August, 2010

Rajinder Lal

… Petitioner

Versus

Gopal Krishan Vasudeva

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Present: Mr. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Present petition has been filed to assail the impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed by the Rent Controller on 1^st February, 2010, whereby issue No.2 was reframed as under:

¶13

“2. Whether the petitioner is in bonafide need of demised premises for his own requirement? OPP”

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Rent Controller was barred from reframing the issue, as there was no justifiable cause to do so, especially when on 22^nd April, 2003, the landlord made a statement to abandon this issue and subsequently also on 24^th January, 2007 he had given-up issue No.2.

¶15

From a perusal of the statement made by the landlord on 22^nd April, 2003, it is apparent that he had withdrawn the petition filed under Section 13-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction)

¶16

¶17

Civil Revision No.1127 of 2010

¶18

Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). Needless to say, the petition under Section 13-A of the Act was filed for personal necessity. Furthermore, on 24^th January, 2007, counsel for the landlord gave a statement that he was giving up issue No.2.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner submits that since twice it is done, later-on the trial Court could not reframe the issue.

¶20

Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate appearing for the respondent, states that the respondent-landlord is a retired old man, who is not having any accommodation and the premises is required for his personal necessity. It is stated that the landlord could not comprehend the legal provisions and under the wrong notion and advice, he had made these statements. Mr.Dadwal prays that he be permitted to withdraw the eviction petition with liberty to file a fresh one to justify the reasons, under which, such statements were made. Counsel for the petitioner has no objection thereto.

¶21

Accordingly, present petition is disposed of with permission to withdraw the eviction petition and to file a fresh one, as prayed for.

¶22

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶23

August 18, 2010 rps

Rajinder Lal v. Gopal Krishan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Lal v. Gopal Krishan

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

Jaipal Singh Vs Neeraj Kumar Garg

Suman Bala Vs Sanjay Vohra and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Kamla Rani and Ors.

Sohan Singh Vs Arya Pradeshik Pritinidhi Sabha

Varinder Kumar Vs Pushpa Devi and Anr.

Inderjit Singh Vs Surinder Kumar Saini