High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of a tenant's revision petition challenging eviction. A local commissioner's report indicated premises were already handed over to the landlord. No further orders deemed necessary.
No further orders; petition stands dismissed.
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.
Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.08.21 09:20I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
C.R. No.4054 of 2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.4054 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 19.8.2013
Ramesh Goel
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Nirmal Kumar and Ors.
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for respondent No.1-caveator.
JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL)
Tenant is in revision under Section 15(5) of the East Urban Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 assailing the order dated 12.11.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby he was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises comprising of six shops/rooms and open space in front thereof situated at Nirmal Market, Oswal Street, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and having ceased to occupy the premises for the last four and half years; and the judgment dated 17.5.2013 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana whereby the findings have been affirmed.
It appears that during the course of hearing, before this Court on 12.7.2013, the petitioner-tenant had restricted his prayer for grant of six months time to vacate the demised premises to enable him to re-locate his
#2#
C.R. No.4054 of 2013 (O&M)
business. However, in view of the stand of the landlord-caveator that the possession of the demised premises had been handed over to the landlord by the Bailiff in the execution proceedings on 9.7.2013, this Court appointed a Local Commissioner to determine the status of the possession.
A report dated 15.7.2013 of the Local Commissioner has been received and the same is on record whereby it is revealed that the possession of the demised premises had been delivered to the landlord and none of the items owned by the tenant were lying in the premises. It is reported that the items belonging to the tenant were handed over by the Bailiff on 9.7.2013 on superdari to a another shop-keeper, namely, Mohinder Singh and were lying in the premises situated in the street on the back of the demised premises under lock and key of said Mohinder Singh.
It is not in dispute that the said report has been prepared in the
presence of both the tenants and the landlord.
None has appeared on behalf of the tenant to state anything
further.
In view of the aforesaid, no further orders are required to be
passed.
Petition stands dismissed.
August 19, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether revision petition by tenant challenging eviction order due to non-payment of rent and cessation of occupancy deserves further consideration when premises possession is unclear.
Status of possession of demised premises after bailiff handed over possession to landlord.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Goel
Nirmal Kumar
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
