Partly allowed

Hari Singh v. the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Apr 2011CWP/12459/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to stay eviction of a shop tenant. After rent arrears and penalties were deposited, the court directed the Municipal Council to consider rent enhancement sympathetically within three months. If acceptable, a fresh lease is executed; otherwise, eviction is revived after six months for relocation.

What did the court decide?

Stayed dispossession of shop No.33; directed Municipal Council to consider rent enhancement within three months; eviction order to be revived if new rent not accepted within that period granting six m

Hari Singh Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.12459 of 2010.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.12459 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.04.2011

Hari Singh

VS.

Deputy Commissioner & Anr.

¶10

. . . . Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶13

¶14

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

Present: Mr. RK Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner

¶18

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab

¶19

Mr. VK Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶20

¶21

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶22

(1). This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 30.07.2009 (Annexure P2) passed by the Collector, Sub Division Bathinda as well as the order dated 12.05.2010 (Annexure P4) vide which the appeal preferred against the said order has been dismissed by respondent No.1. The petitioner, vide the impugned orders, has been ordered to be evicted from Shop No.33 owned by the Municipal Council, Bathinda primarily on account of nonpayment of the rent.

¶23

2 –

¶24

CWP No.12459 of 2010.doc

¶25

(2). Taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances and the hardship likely to be faced by the petitioner and his family members, the following order was passed on 26.07.2010:-

¶26

“Though having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, no case to interfere with the impugned order is made out, however, subject to (i) the petitioner depositing the entire arrears of rent within one week; (ii) penalty of Rs.50,000/- within one month and (iii) giving an undertaking by way of an affidavit to suitably increase the rent as per the Bye-Laws/Policy, his dispossession shall remain stayed.”

¶27

(3).

¶28

In deference thereto, it is stated by counsel for the respondents that the entire arrears of rent along with penalty of Rs.50000/- has been deposited by the petitioner and an undertaking has also been given by way of affidavit that he is willing to suitably increase the rent of the shop as per the byelaws/policy of the Corporation. That being so, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the operation of the impugned orders shall remain in abeyance till the Municipal Council, Bathinda considers the petitioner’s request for renewal of the lease on suitable enhancement of the monthly rent.

¶29

3 –

¶30

CWP No.12459 of 2010.doc

¶31

(4). It is directed that the Municipal Council, Bathinda shall not increase the rent arbitrarily and shall consider the enhancement sympathetically with a pragmatic approach and keeping in view the petitioner’s capability as well as the monthly income likely to be generated by him from the shop in question.

¶32

(5). The appropriate decision to this effect shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the proposed rent is acceptable to the petitioner a fresh lease shall be executed in his favour, otherwise, the eviction order shall stand revived and a period of six months shall be granted to the petitioner to shift his business to some other alternative site.

¶33

(6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶34

08.04.2011 vishal shonkar

¶35

(S u r y a K a n t) Judge

Hari Singh v. the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Singh v. the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sangrur Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Distt. Magistrate Cum Deputy Comm. Sgr & Ors.

Balbir Garg Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Saluja Rice Mills Vs Pb State Civil Supply Corpn Ltd. and Ors.

Babu Ram Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Laddi Bus Service Regd. and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Rajsons Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.