Dismissed

Roshan Lal v. Baikunth Nath

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Aug 2010CR/4103/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an eviction dispute, parties consented to an amicable resolution with a time extension for the tenant. The court accepted the proposal, dismissing the petition but directing the tenant to vacate by July 1, 2011, and pay arrears and future rent.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; petitioner granted nine months to vacate; direction to hand over possession by July 1, 2011, and file undertaking for rent payment.

Roshan Lal Vs Baikunth Nath — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.4103 of 2009

¶3

Date of decision: 16^th August, 2010

Roshan Lal

… Petitioner

Versus

Baikunth Nath

… Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Present: Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Both the courts below have ordered eviction of the petitionertenant on the ground that the shop in question was in a dilapidated condition and had become unfit for human habitation. The Courts below relied upon the testimony of one Arvind Kumar PW-1, a witness produced by the landlord; and Jasbir Singh, Civil Engineer/Architect PW-2. The landlord also proved a notice issued by the Municipal authorities that the building be demolished.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the shop in question is on the ground-floor, whereas the building which is damaged, is on the first and second flours. Learned counsel further submits that sisters of the landlord are staying in the same premises and the premises consists of eight shops, but the landlord has opted to cause eviction of the petitionertenant only.

¶14

¶15

Civil Revision No.4103 of 2009

¶16

To controvert this submission, Mr.H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.R.K. Dhiman, Advocate, has stated that litigation is already pending qua three shops, two shops are vacant and tenants in two shops have given undertaking that they will vacate the shops as and when the shop is vacated by the petitioner.

¶17

Before this Court could decide the case on merits, counsel for the parties have stated that they have decided to amicably resolve the dispute. It is stated that in case nine months’ time is granted to the petitioner-tenant to make an alternative arrangement, this Court may not pronounce its decision and the petitioner shall withdraw this petition.

¶18

This Court is of the opinion that due sanctity ought to be granted to the broad consensus formulated by the parties.

¶19

Accordingly, as prayed, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner-tenant shall hand over the actual physical peaceful vacant possession of the shop in question to the respondent-landlord on or before 1^st July, 2011. As stated by counsel for the petitioner, an undertaking to this effect shall be filed by the petitioner in the Court of Rent Controller, Ambala City. The undertaking shall further state that the petitioner shall pay entire arrears of rent and that the rent pertaining to following months shall be paid in advance on or before the 7^th day of each month. As agreed between the parties, the undertaking shall be filed on or before 15^th September, 2010.

¶20

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶21

August 16, 2010 rps

Roshan Lal v. Baikunth Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal v. Baikunth Nath

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

Gurdev Chand Vs Iqbal Kaur and Ors.

M/S Vikas Studios and Anr. Vs Makhan Singh

Neena Rani Vs Jaimal and Ors.

Tejinder Singh Bains etc. Vs Vijay Kumar

Kishan Lal Vs Jyoti Sehgal

M/S Vishal Engineers Vs Gian Kaur & Ors.