Revision petition dismissed as not maintainable. Petitioner has an effective remedy by appeal under Section 15 of the Rent Act following the Supreme Court judgment in Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal.
Liberty granted to the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy before the Appellate Authority.
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
CR No.1373 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.11.2011
Malagar Singh
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Inderjit Singh and others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)
This is landlord's revision petition challenging the impugned order of the Rent Controller dated 22.11.2010 whereby provisional rent of the demised premises was assessed.
In view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal , JT 2011 (6) SC 236, the impugned order is appealable.
In view of the aforesaid authoritatively judgment of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court, this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is having an effective remedy before the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Rent Act.
Dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy before the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.
November 14, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup BansalReferred¶13
Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal, JT 2011 (6) SC 236 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Malagar Singh
Inderjit Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
