Viewed as a day appeals like a case where the parties agree that no separate arguments are needed, the court dismisses the petition relying on a sister decision affirming the Rent Controller's order.
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. 2693 of 2010
Date of Decision: 24.9.2010
Gurnam Singh
…Petitioner
Versus
Raghbir Singh
…Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Dhruv Pal, Advocate for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that for the reasons, as detailed in “Dr. Manmeet Kaur v. Raghbir Singh (Civil Revision No. 2694 of 2010, decided on 24.9.2010) , no separate arguments are required to be advanced in the present revision petition and the findings, recorded by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, appraised by this Court justify the same result which has been recorded in the aforesaid revision petition.
Hence, the present revision petition is also dismissed in the same terms as in Dr. Manmeet Kaur's case (supra) and the order dated 1.4.2010, passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, is upheld.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge
September 24, 2010 “ DK ”
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Manmeet Kaur v. Raghbir SinghRelied on¶13
Dr. Manmeet Kaur v. Raghbir Singh (Civil Revision No. 2694 of 2010, decided on 24.9.2010)
Gurnam Singh
Raghbir Singh
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
