Dismissed

Amarpreet Singh v. Mohinder Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Aug 2013CR/3594/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition against the dismissal of an application to amend a written statement in eviction proceedings was dismissed. The Court held that a vacant premises at the building's backside did not negate the landlord's need for a front-side restaurant, as the landlord is the best judge of their needs.

What did the court decide?

The revision application was dismissed; the impugned order dated 9.5.2012 by the Appellate Authority stands.

Amarpreet Singh Vs Mohinder Kaur — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR 3594/2012(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR 3594/2012(O&M) Date of decision:07/08/2013

¶5

Amarpreet Singh

¶6

.............Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Mohinder Kaur

¶9

.............Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr.S.S.Brar,Advocate for the petitioner/tenant Mr.R.S.Bajaj,Advocate for the respondent/landlady.

¶12

Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)

¶13

The tenant is in revision aggrieved against the order dated 9.5.2012(P8) passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar whereby the application of the tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement during the pendency of his appeal against his eviction order dated 5.3.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, has been dismissed.

¶14

It is stated that the respondent/landlady moved an ejectment petition on 12.5.2007 before the learned Rent Controller seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises comprising the front portion of H.No.332, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar City on the

¶15

Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.12 11:58 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

¶16

¶17

CR 3594/2012(O&M)

¶18

ground of arrears of rent and personal necessity of the landlady for opening a restaurant in the said portion (since the area is declared to be a commercial area). Tenant contested the said petition. The learned Rent Controller, vide judgement and order dated 5.3.2011 allowed the ejectment petition only on the ground of personal necessity of the landlady. The tenant filed an appeal on 22.3.2011 before the learned Appellate Authority,Jalandhar and after a period of one year filed the present application dated 21.2.2012(P6) seeking to amend the written statement by incorporating preliminary objection nos. 7 to 9. The landlady contested the same by filing reply. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 9.5.2012 on the premise that said facts sought to be now introduced were throughout in the knowledge of the tenant and if any amendment was sought to be made, the same was to be made before the learned Rent Controller at that particular stage.

¶19

During the course of hearing before this Court, the counsel for the tenant has stressed upon the incorporation of preliminary objection no.8 only since it was alleged to be a subsequent event. The event sought to be introduced is that after the filing of the eviction petition, the other tenants in the same building have vacated the premises in their possession and thus the proposed personal necessity would be sufficiently satisfied with the subsequently vacated premises, nullifying the proposed need. It was further submitted that the landlady

¶20

in her cross examination has admitted this fact that another portion inJoshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.12 11:58 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

¶21

¶22

CR 3594/2012(O&M)

¶23

the same building has become vacant and available to the landlady and therefore, except incorporation in the written statement no other evidence is required to be led.

¶24

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/ landlady has submitted that the other portion in the building which had become vacant and available to the landlady is concededly situated at the backside of the building and thus, would not meet the requirement of opening a restaurant in the absence of any opening towards the backside or any approach road. It is thus submitted that the said amendment would not advance the case of the tenant, besides being liable to be rejected on the ground that it was in the knowledge of the tenant throughout since the year 2008 i.e. during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller.

¶25

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and giving my thoughtful consideration, I am persuaded to agree with the counsel for the respondent/landlady.

¶26

It is not disputed that the subsequently vacated premises are towards the backside of the building. It also cannot be disputed that it was in the knowledge of the tenant since he had put the same in cross examination to the landlady during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller. It also cannot be, by any stretch of reasoning, accepted that the proposed need for opening a restaurant in the front side of the building would be adequately met/discounted on

¶27

the availability of a premises at the backside of the premises, since it isJoshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.12 11:58 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

¶28

¶29

CR 3594/2012(O&M)

¶30

well settled principle of law that the landlord is the best judge of his need. Therefore, I find no ground warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶31

Dismissed.

¶32

However, the learned Appellate Authority would not be

¶33

bound by anything observed hereinabove on merits.

¶34

07.08.2013. joshi

¶35

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

¶36

Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.12 11:58 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

Amarpreet Singh v. Mohinder Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarpreet Singh v. Mohinder Kaur

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

Bishop P.K.Samanta Rao & Ors. Vs Joshil Rai

Ajay Kumar and Ors. Vs Tejpal and Anr.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. Vs M/S Khera Oil Tanker Service and Ors.

Bahajn Singh Vs Rajinder Singh

Harpreet Kaur @ Gurnam Kaur Vs Jaswinder Singh

Prem Lata and Anr. Vs Zonal Manager Pb, & Sind Bank and Ors.