Partly allowed

Bimal Kumar v. Indu Jain & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2013CR/4042/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this tenant's revision petition, the Petitioner challenged an eviction order based on subletting and the landlord's bona fide personal necessity. The High Court dismissed the revision on merits but granted the Petitioner time until 31 December 2013 to vacate the premises, subject to payment of rent and submission of an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed on merits; time granted till 31 December 2013 to hand over vacant possession subject to payment of rent and filing of undertaking before the Rent Controller.

Bimal Kumar Vs Indu Jain & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶2

AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CR No.4042 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.7.2013

Bimal Kumar

-----Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Indu Jain & ors.

-----Respondent(s)

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. V.K. Jindal, Advocate along with Petitioner-in-person. ---

¶14

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.

¶15

This is tenant’s revision petition, challenging the order dated 10.3.2012 of the Rent Controller, Rajpura, whereby his eviction has been ordered from the demised premises on the ground of subletting and bona fide need of the respondentlandlady and the judgment dated 24.4.2013 of the Appellate Authority, Patiala, dismissing his appeal against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

¶16

CR No. 4042 of 2013

¶17

¶18

The Courts below, on appreciation of the evidence on record, have recorded a concurrent finding that the respondentlandlady is entitled to the vacant possession of the demised premises, as she requires the demised premises for her bona fide personal necessity and further petitioner has sublet the property in dispute.

¶19

Even before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has remained unsuccessful to challenge the aforesaid findings by pointing out any material irregularities.

¶20

Faced with the aforesaid situation, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner who is present in Court, has submitted that the demises premises is a shop, wherein the petitioner is running his business and thus, petitioner is ready to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the respondent-landlady if sufficient time is given to him.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the petitioner shall pay usual monthly rent upto the date of handing over of the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlady as charges for the use and occupation of the same. Learned counsel has further stated that the petitioner shall hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlady on or before the expiry of the time granted by this Court. He further stated that the

¶22

CR No. 4042 of 2013

¶23

¶24

petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Rent Controller in this regard.

¶25

Thus, keeping in view the submissions made, the revision petition is dismissed, on merits. However, the petitioner is granted time up till 31^st December, 2013 to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondentlandlady, subject to payment of rent etc., as stated above and also furnishing of an undertaking of the petitioner before the Rent Controller within one month from today to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises on or before the expiry of the stipulated period upto 31.12.2013.

¶26

It is made clear that the petitioner shall be bound by the submissions made on his behalf by his counsel before this Court.

¶27

In case of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner shall also be liable for initiation of contempt proceedings for contempt of this Court in addition to the execution of the eviction order.

¶28

July 09, 2013 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE

Bimal Kumar v. Indu Jain & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimal Kumar v. Indu Jain & Ors.

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

M/S Rai Karan Suraj Bhan Vs Balbir Singh and Anr.

Chaman Lal Vs Bal Krishan Bindal

Gursewak Singh Vs Ved Parkash

Agrim and Ors. Vs Satish Kumar Thareja

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

Pushpa Rani Vs Bal Kishan and Anr.