Allowed

Usha Puri v. Jaswinder Singh Rooprai

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Sept 2010CR/828/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the revision petition, setting aside an order dismissing the tenant's application for leave to contest an eviction petition on limitation grounds. The court held that the limitation period commences from the date of proclamation service after a refusal report was legally rejected, granting the Rent Controller one month to decide the merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.10.2009 setting aside; Rent Controller directed to decide the application for leave to defend on merits within one month.

Usha Puri Vs Jaswinder Singh Rooprai — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.828 of 2010 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision: 22^nd September, 2010

Usha Rani

… Petitioner

Versus

Jaswinder Singh

… Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Present: Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paramjit Rajput, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Civil Misc. No. 24261-CII of 2010

¶13

CM is allowed and a copy of order dated 19^th January, 2009 annexed therewith is taken on record.

¶14

Civil Revision No.828 of 2010

¶15

Application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to contest was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide order dated 22.10.2009, being barred by limitation as it was filed after 77 days from the date of receipt of notice.

¶16

Briefly stated, respondent-landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) to cause eviction of the petitioner from the premises described in the head-note of the eviction

¶17

¶18

Civil Revision No.828 of 2010 (O&M)

¶19

petition. Since the respondent-landlord pleaded that he, being a NonResident Indian, could invok the special provision of Section 13-B of the Act. The eviction petition was instituted on 14^th November, 2008 and the notice was issued for 19^th January, 2009. It is stated that on 4^th December, 2008, the Process Server had recorded refusal of the petitioner on the summons. This report of refusal was not accepted by the Rent Controller and on 19^th January, 2009, he passed the following order:

¶20

“Present: Counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

Summons have been received with the report of refusal. On perusal of the report and further in the ends of justice, respondent be now summoned through Munadi and affixation for 10.3.2009 on deposit of requisite munadi fee.

¶22

Sd/H.S. Grewal

¶23

In pursuance thereof, Munadi (proclamation) was held on 5^th March, 2009. Hearing the proclamation, within seven days, i.e. on 12^th March, 2009 the petitioner filed an application seeking leave to contest. This application was declined by the Rent Controller on the ground that it was barred by limitation and he construed the limitation from the day when on the earlier summons, refusal was recorded.

¶24

After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that once the Rent Controller had come to a conclusion that the report of refusal was not to be accepted and fresh summons were to be issued and this time service was effected through Munadi (proclamation)/ affixation, then the service is to be counted from the date when such a proclamation was made. That being so, the petitioner had instituted the application for leave to defend within a specified time. The application of

¶25

¶26

Civil Revision No.828 of 2010 (O&M)

¶27

the petitioner was not decided on merits, but was dismissed primarily on the ground of limitation.

¶28

In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 22^nd October, 2009 is hereby set aside. The Rent Controller, Jalandhar is directed to decide whether application for leave to defend is to be allowed or not after examining the merits within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶29

With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of.

¶30

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶31

September 22, 2010 rps

Usha Puri v. Jaswinder Singh Rooprai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Puri v. Jaswinder Singh Rooprai

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

Gurnam Singh and Ors. Vs Charanjiv Bhardwaj etc.

Gyatri Overseas etc. Vs Budh Ram

Neeraj Sharma Vs Budh Ram

Rakesh Arora Vs Sikha

Pawan Kumar Vs Sharda Devi

Sehdev Singh Vs State of Pbe.Tc.