Partly allowed

Rajinder Kumar Malik v. Ranjit Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Mar 2012CR/1489/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the revision petition on an undertaking by the petitioner to vacate premises within six months and deposit rent arrears, deferring dispossession due to the petitioner's inability to press the case on merits.

What did the court decide?

Exemption from filing certified copies granted; petitioner allowed six months to vacate premises upon furnishing undertaking and depositing rent arrears.

Rajinder Kumar Malik Vs Ranjit Kaur — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No.1489 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.1489 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.3.2012

¶5

Rajinder Kumar Malik ….Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Smt. Ranjit Kaur ….Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶9

Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

G. S. SANDHAWALIA, J, (Oral).

¶12

Civil Misc. No.6354-C-II of 2012

¶13

Prayer made in the application is for grant of exemption from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-3.

¶14

In view of the averments made in the application, which are supported by affidavit, the Civil Misc. Application is allowed. CR No.1489 of 2012

¶15

After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press this petition on merit provided the petitioner is given six months' time to vacate the premises in question.

¶16

The order of ejectment was passed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Act”) on the ground that the landlady required the premises for stay of her daughter, who is married in Canada and when they come to India with their children they are to reside with the landlady. The premises in question is the first floor of the house where the landlady is already

¶17

-2-

¶18

Civil Revision No.1489 of 2012

¶19

staying. A perusal of the order go on to show that all the conditions which are necessary under Section 13-B of the Rent Act have been fulfilled and there is no illegality in the order of ejectment. Since the counsel for the petitioner is not pressing the petition on merits, the undertaking given by him is considered reasonable. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to furnish an undertaking before the Rent Controller, Jalandhar that he shall vacate the premises in question by 31.8.2012 and shall also deposit all the arrears of rent which are due and shall continue to deposit the rent which shall accrue by 7^th of every month with the Rent Controller. The undertaking shall be furnished by the petitioner by 19.3.2012 before the Rent Controller, Jalandhar along with the arrears of rent.

¶20

Accordingly, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the premises in question for a period of six months i.e. till 31.8.2012. In case the petitioner does not vacate the premises the Rent Controller shall get the order executed with the help of police.

¶21

It is made clear that if the undertaking is not furnished or the rent is not deposited by stipulated date, the revision petition shall be deemed to be dismissed.

¶22

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶24

07.03.2012 Pka

Rajinder Kumar Malik v. Ranjit Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Kumar Malik v. Ranjit Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jag Ram Vs Lalit Kumar and Anr.

Bhupinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Kirpal Singh and Ors.

Bhura Singh Vs Gurbhagat Singh

Sunil Kumar Vs Lal Chand and Ors.

Dhirender Gupta Vs M.S. Rana

Gurnam @ Gama Vs State of Punjab