Dismissed

Jagdish Parshad v. Roshan Lal

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2012CR/7494/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision, a tenant challenged eviction orders. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts' finding that the landlord validly owned the premises and had rights to evict the tenant was supported by the sale deed and could not be demolished. No interference was permitted.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the eviction order against the petitioner.

Jagdish Parshad Vs Roshan Lal — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CR-7494-2011 (O&M)

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

:::::::

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CR-7494-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:02.02.2012 Jagdish Parshad ...Petitioner Versus Roshan Lal ...Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶7

Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. *****

¶8

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

¶9

The tenant is in revision against orders of the Courts below by which he has been evicted from the plot measuring 50' x 106', situated at Singhana Road, Narnaul.

¶10

The landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] alleging therein that the tenant is in possession of the demised premises on rent under the earlier landlord/owner Ram Lal son of Sukhdev vide rent note dated 22.06.1980 @ 300/- per month which was further enhanced to @ 411/- per month in terms of the rent note dated 14.08.1985. Ram Lal sold the demised premises to Rattan Lal vide sale deed No.404 dated 11.06.1998, whereas Rattan Lal sold the demised premises to Roshan Lal (present landlord) vide sale deed No.2672 dated 01.01.2001. The eviction petition is filed on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.07.2000 to 01.05.2003 @ 411/- per month, total amounting to @ 13,974/- and had also not paid the house tax.

¶11

In reply, the tenant denied the ownership of the respondentlandlord and had alleged that there have been sham transactions by Ram Lal to Rattan Lal and by Rattan Lal to Roshan Lal.

¶12

After filing of rejoinder by the landlord, issues were framed on

¶13

CR-7494-2011 (O&M)

¶14

[ 2 ]

¶15

:::::::

¶16

14.10.2003 and both the parties led their respective oral as well as documentary evidence on appreciation of which the Courts below had passed the order of eviction against the tenant.

¶17

The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the demised premises is not the one which is alleged to have been purchased by the landlord by way of sale deed No.2672 dated 01.01.2002 from Rattan Lal. In this regard, he has referred to the sale deed (Annexure P-1) in which the property purchased by the landlord has been mentioned as well as the rent note (Annexure P-4) in which the property in possession of the tenant has been described.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and perused the available record.

¶19

The learned Rent Controller has returned a categoric finding that it is specifically mentioned in the sale deed dated 01.01.2002 that Jagdish Parshad (petitioner herein) is tenant over the land sold by Rattan Lal which was let out to him vide rent notes dated 22.06.1980 and 14.08.1985 and it is also mentioned that the purchaser of the said land would have a right to evict the tenant and also to recover the rent from him.

¶20

In view of this categoric finding which could not be demolished by learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.

¶21

February 02, 2012 vinod*

¶22

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE

Jagdish Parshad v. Roshan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Parshad v. Roshan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulshan Kuamr Vs Tek Chand and Anr.

State of Haryana Thru Xen Phd. Mgarh Vs Ram Niwas

Raj Kumar @ Raju & Anr. Vs Parminder Singh

Babli Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Prtc Vs Jasvinder Kumar & Anr.

Mulakh Raj Vs Durga Dass