Revision petition challenging a Rent Controller's order declining leave to contest an eviction petition under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Holds the order is correct.
Revision petition dismissed in limine.
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.
Civil Revision No. 5037 of 2010
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Civil Revision No. 5037 of 2010
Date of Decision: 12.8.2010
Dilbagh Singh
…Petitioner
Versus
Amrik Singh
…Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. C.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is a tenant, who was sought to be evicted by the landlord, after his retirement, by filing an eviction petition under Section 13A of Act III of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, vide impugned order dated 3.5.2010, has declined the application of the petitioner/tenant for leave to contest the eviction proceedings.
The impugned order, whereby leave to contest was declined, is being assailed on two grounds by learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, the landlord has not placed on record the certificate issued by the employer to the effect that he had retired. Secondly, even if leave to contest is declined, then the Court has to satisfy regarding the bonafide requirement of the landlord.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Controlling
Civil Revision No. 5037 of 2010
2
Authority i.e. District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Nawanshahr, has issued a certificate to the effect that the landlord, who is working as an Inspector in the department, is going to retire. Secondly, even if leave to contest is declined, the Rent Controller can examine the landlord to satisfy himself as to whether his necessity is bonafide or not.
In the present case, the landlord has specifically stated that he is not having any residential house within the municipal limits of Hoshiarpur and the house alleged by the tenant, falls in village Ajjowal, constructed over a shamlat land. There was no denial to the averment that the landlord was not having any house in the municipal limits of Hoshiarpur.
Hence, the impugned order dated 3.5.2010, passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, suffers from no infirmity and the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, in limine.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge
August 12, 2010 “ DK ”
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order declining leave to contest under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 suffers from legal infirmity.
Whether the Rent Controller required a residential certificate to establish validity of the claim.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dilbagh Singh
Amrik Singh
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
