Petitioner challenged eviction order under Punjab Religious Premises Act. Court stuck to finding of subletting and dismissed writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed; eviction order upheld.
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.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.11025 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.02.2011
Amar Nath
VS.
Commissioner, Faridkot & Ors. . . . . Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab
Mr. VM Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
CWP No.11025 of 2008.doc
(3).
(4).
subletting. It appears that the arrears of rent were tendered and as such the first ground was not pressed into aid. As regards the second ground, it stands categorically proved that the demised premises was let out to the firm M/s. Jagdish Rai Amar Nath comprising the petitioner and respondent No.6 who is said to have sublet the same to respondents No.4&5. While the petitioner and the private respondents claimed that it was a case of entering into ‘partnership’ only, the petitioner in para 3 of his written statement took up the plea that he was carrying on the business all alone. In the light of these contradictory pleas taken by the tenants/sub-tenants and keeping in view the fact that the shop in dispute was admittedly let out to the petitioner and respondent No.6 and the onus was on them to prove as to in what capacity the other respondents were in the possession, the concurrent finding of fact regarding subletting of the demised premises warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
It may also be noticed here that no ad interim stay having been granted to the petitioner by this Court, the possession of the demised premises was taken by the
CWP No.11025 of 2008.doc
landlord-Sabha and the same is said to have been let out
to some other tenant.
writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.
23.02.2011 vishal shonkar
(S u r y a K a n t) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether eviction was justified on grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting given conflicting pleas between landlord and tenants.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amar Nath
Commissioner, Faridkot
Collector, Mansa
Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Mansa
M/s. Jagdish Rai Amar Nath
Respondents No.4 and 5
SURYA KANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
