Dismissed

Joginder Singh v. Hamir Chand and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jan 2013CR/113/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this rent control ejection matter, the High Court reviewed the proceedings of the Petitioner (tenant) challenging the eviction order passed in his favor by the Respondent (landlord) on grounds of personal necessity and non-payment of rent.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's rent petition was dismissed; the tenant is allowed three months to vacate the premises from today.

Joginder Singh Vs Hamir Chand and Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR No. 113 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 113 of 2013

¶5

Date of decision January 10, 2013

¶6

Joginder Singh

¶7

....... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Hamir Chand and another

¶10

........ Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶12

Present:Mr. S. S. Bains , Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶15

To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶16

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶17

The petition is against the order of ejectment

¶18

passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority where the landlord was seeking for the relief on the ground of personal necessity and non-payment of rent. The landlord was pleading that he has no residential accommodation at Chandigarh but he is living along with his son in a rented accommodation at H.No.3358 Sector 45-D at Chandigarh. The contention in defence was that the building was not rented and that it belonged to him. The Court found that a negative fact of the landlord being not the owner could have been shown to be wrong only by positive evidence that the property actually belonged to the landlord in the manner contended by the tenant. When no such evidence was placed, the two Court below

¶19

¶20

CR No. 113 of 2013

¶21

conncurrently held that the bonafides of the requirement of landlord established. I have no reason to take a different view on the same and I find no error in the judicial approach made by the Courts below. There is no merit in the rent petition and it is dismissed.

¶22

The Court has been instituted on 14.9.2005 and the case has stood on for consideration for more than six years in the Courts. The counsel seeks for six month's time for vacating the premises. The Appellate Authority has passed the order on 15.12.2011. The tenant will have three month's time for vacating the house from today..

¶23

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶24

January 10, 2013 archana

Joginder Singh v. Hamir Chand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Singh v. Hamir Chand 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

Surjit Singh Vs Poonam Rani

Ashwani Kumar and Another Vs Rasal Singh and Others

(O&M) Virinder Kumar Aggarwal Vs Gurmeet Singh

Rattan Singh Vs Pb. Wakf Board

Anita Rani Vs Arun Goyal and Ors.

Karnail Singh Vs Hind Rani