Dismissed

Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sahib Singh Aulakh

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jul 2013CR/3318/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenges a Rent Controller order dismissing late leave to defend. Upholding a Full Bench view that Rent Controllers lack power to condone delay, the High Court dismissed the petition as lacking merit, holding eviction consequential.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed as having no merit; respondent landlords are entitled to eviction as per impugned order.

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs Sahib Singh Aulakh — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶2

AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CM No.14549-CII of 2013 in/and CR No.3318 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.7.2013

¶4

Oriental Bank of Commerce

¶5

-----Petitioner(s)

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sahib Singh Aulakh

¶8

-----Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶10

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶11

To be referred to reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present:Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Inderjit Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent. ---

¶15

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.

¶16

CM No.14549-CII of 2013 :

¶17

The application is allowed subject to all just

¶18

exceptions. Reply of the respondent-landlord to the stay application is taken on record.

¶19

CR No.3318 of 2013:

¶20

The respondent filed a petition under Section 13-B of

¶21

the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, “the Act”)

¶22

for eviction of the petitioner-bank. Summons were served upon

¶23

CR No. 3318 of 2013

¶24

¶25

the petitioner-bank on 18.5.2012 for 12.6.2012. The petitionerBank filed an application under Section 18-A(4) of the Act for grant of leave to defend to the petitioner-bank on 12.6.2012 i.e. after expiry of the period of limitation of 15 days, as prescribed. The said application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 25.4.2013 holding that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to condone such delay under the Limitation Act and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises, which is consequential.

¶26

The aforesaid order is supported by a Full Bench judgment of this Court titled as Anwar Ali v. Gian Kaur 2001(2) RCR (Rent) 604 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Parkash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi 2010(4) RCR Civil 163, wherein it has been held that Rent Controller has no power to condone the delay in filing leave to defend.

¶27

Even before this Court, counsel for the petitioner was unable to challenge the impugned order or find fault with the impugned order by showing any contrary view.

¶28

In this view of the matter, this petition, which is without any merit, is dismissed.

¶29

July 10, 2013 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE

Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sahib Singh Aulakh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sahib Singh Aulakh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimal Kumar Vs Indu Jain & Ors.

Agrim and Ors. Vs Satish Kumar Thareja

M/S Bajrang Lal Amit Kumar and Anr. Vs Ram Niwas and Ors.

State of Punjab Vs M/S Shakti Rice and Ors.

Nahar Singh Vs Baldev Singh

Balan & Ors. Vs Dhanbir Singh Lochab