Dismissed

Rajneesh Kumar v. Sandeep Kumar Sadana

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Mar 2013CR/1484/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against an order of ejectment, the tenant challenged the eviction on the ground of unregistered lease deed evidence and lack of notice period. The High Court, finding the landlord had established bona fide need, dismissed the revision and granted a six-month period for vacating the premises against a conditional undertaking.

What did the court decide?

The Civil revision was dismissed; the tenant was granted a period of six months to vacate the premises.

Rajneesh Kumar Vs Sandeep Kumar Sadana — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR No. 1484 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 1484 of 2013 Date of decision March 4, 2013

¶5

Rajneesh Kumar s/o Kimat Rai

¶6

....... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Sandeep Kumar Sadana s/o D. N. Sadana

¶9

........ Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Rahul Sharama-I , Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶14

The tenant is in revision against the order of ejectment on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for bona fide occupation and that the tenant is guilty of change of user of the property. Evidently the landlord had established his need and the two Courts have found that the landlord had proved his bona fide need. The counsel has still an objection that the change of user was sought to be proved with reference to unregistered lease deed which has spelt out the nature of change. According to him, the recitals in the unregistered deed could not have been relied on. Even if this plea for change of user cannot be sustained, if the landlord had secured an ejectment on his bona fides and there is no tenable ground to assail the said finding, the order of eviction already passed ought to be required to be sustained. Counsel argues that the tenant

¶15

¶16

CR No. 1484 of 2013

¶17

has been running his business in the demised premises and the Court has ordered ejectment even without providing for any time for ejectment. The tenant will have a period of six months for vacating the premises and he shall file an undertaking before this and file the same Court at the Registry that he will vacate the premises at or before six months and will continue to pay during the extended period provided through this order. The undertaking shall be given within one week from today but failure to comply with any direction will result in the period granted to be terminated forthwith and allow for the landlord to secure ejectment in execution forthwith.

¶18

The Civil revision is dismissed with above

¶19

observation.

¶20

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶21

March 4, 2013 archana

Rajneesh Kumar v. Sandeep Kumar Sadana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh Kumar v. Sandeep Kumar Sadana

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

(O&M) Urmila & Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Another

(O&M) State of Haryana Vs Chander Bhan.

R.S.Chhikara etc. Vs State of Hy.Etc.

State of Haryana & Anr. Vs Khub Ram & Anr.

State of Haryana & Anr. Vs Chander Prakash

Ganga Bishan and Anr. Vs Anil and Others