Petitioner tenant filed revision against eviction orders based on landlord's bona fide need. Court noted prior occupation and physical handover of possession. Held petition unsuccessful as matter already resolved.
Tenant's revision petition dismissed
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.5971 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.11.2011
Ispak Ahmed son of Sh. Ahmed Khan
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Mrs. Sushma Gupta and anr.
......Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned orders of eviction dated 1.2.2011 and 12.5.2011 passed against him by the Authorities below on the ground that the landlords require the demised premises for their personal bona fide need.
This Court on 28.9.2011 passed the following order:
“Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate.
“There is concurrent finding of fact that the landlord require the premises for personal necessity and there is no ground for interfering in that finding.
Notice of motion to the extent to grant time to the petitioner for vacating the premises for 11.11.2011.”
On 11.11.2011, the following order was passed by this Court:
“Present: Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate for Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Sanjeev Roy, Advocate for Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the respondents.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
CR No.5971 of 2011 (O&M)
-2-
states that possession of the demised premises has been handed over to the respondentslandlord.
List on 14.11.2011.
To be shown in the urgent list.”
Today, Sh. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate, has admitted before this
Court that possession of demised premises has been taken over by thelandlord-respondents. However, his contention is that the same is taken by force. Mr. Ahuja, has very fairly stated that no police complaint has been lodged in this regard.
In view of the order dated 28.9.2011 of this Court and the fact that possession of demised premises has already been handed over to the respondent-landlord, this petition does not survive.
Dismissed.
November 14, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the tenant's revision petition survives given that possession has been handed over to the landlord.
Ispak Ahmed
Mrs. Sushma Gupta
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
