Petitioners in revision assailing orders upholding dismissal of ejectment petition. Counsel seeking withdrawal. Revision dismissed as withdrawn.
Revision petition dismissed as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CR 2573/2013(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR 2573/2013(O&M) Date of decision:29/08/2013
Raj Kumar and others
.............Petitioners
v.
Laxman Dass
.............Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.Jai Vir Yadav,Advocate for the petitioners
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
The legal representatives of the alleged tenant-Baru Mal namely Raj Kumar and others are in revision under Section 15(5) of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act,1973, assailing the order dated 22.9.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Narwana whereby while dismissing the ejectment petition filed by Laxman Dass a finding is returned that the deceased Baru Mal is not tenant of said Laxman Dass; and challenge is also to the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jind whereby the said findings were affirmed while dismissing the appeal filed by said Laxman Dass.
One Laxman Dass filed a rent petition no.18 of 27.4.2006 seeking eviction of the alleged tenant Baru Mal inter alia on the ground that the demised shop having been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was claimed that the building was hundred years old and in a dilapidated condition with bricks falling and cracks in the wall. ItJoshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.30 11:01 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
2
CR 2573/2013(O&M)
was also claimed that the Municipal Committee, Narwana had also initiated proceedings for its demolition. The tenant-Baru Mal contested the eviction petition and denied that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Since another rent petition bearing no.15 of 5.4.2006 had been filed by a collateral of Laxman Dass namely Sanjay Kumar claiming himself to be owner of the demised shop and thus natural landlord, the two petitions were consolidated in view of orders passed by this Court. In view of the detailed findings recorded in the eviction petition no.15 of 5.4.2006 filed by Sanjay holding him to be natural landlord and Raj Kumar, son of Baru Mal to be tenant, the present eviction petition no.18 dated 27.4.2006 was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Narwana vide order dated 22.9.2011.
Dis-satisfied against the order only one appeal was filed and that too by Laxman Dass and the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2012 affirming the findings returned by the learned Rent Controller.
At the time of hearing, realising that the present revision petition would not be maintainable, learned counsel prays for permission to withdraw the same.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
29.08.2013. joshi
(Jaswant Singh) Judge
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.30 11:01 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumar and others
Laxman Dass
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
