In a revision petition challenging eviction orders, the tenant appealed the lower courts' bona fide findings of personal necessity by the landlord. The High Court dismissed the petition on merits due to concurrent findings of fact and on limitation grounds due to a 337-day delay.
Revision petition dismissed on merits and on the point of limitation.
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.
CR 5194/2013(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR 5194/2013(O&M) Date of decision:09/09/2013
Inderjit and others
.............Petitioners
v.
Ram Gopal
.............Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.Amit Dhawan,Advocate for the petitioners/tenants.
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
Since there is delay of 337 days in filing the present revision petition, application bearing CM No.17879-CII/2013 has been filed seeking condonation of said delay. The application is accompanied by affidavit of petitioner no.1.
The tenants are in revision against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Authorities below whereby they have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises comprising a shop being part of property bearing MC No.270, Post Office Road, Opposite ICICI Bank,Nakodar, vide judgement dated 3.3.2010 and the findings thereof duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar vide judgement dated 9.6.2012 while dismissing appeal of the tenants.
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.09.09 17:37 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
2
CR 5194/2013(O&M)
Counsel for the tenants heard at length.
It is apparent that the landlords had sought eviction of two
adjacent shops including the present shop for the purpose of demolishing both the shops and widening the passage leading upto the house as also reconstruct a shop of bigger size for relocating their flourishing business to the present shop.
Both the courts below, as a matter of fact concurrently held personal necessity of the landlord,on the basis of material placed on record, as bona fide. Still further, the tenant has also admitted that passage adjacent to the shop leading to the house is narrow.
In view of the concurrent findings, no ground for interference in the present revision petition is made out. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed on merits as well as on the point of limitation.
09.09.2013. joshi
(Jaswant Singh) Judge
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.09.09 17:37 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision court can interfere when findings of personal necessity by lower authorities are bona fide and concurrent.
Whether the delay of 337 days in filing the revision petition can be condoned.
Inderjit and others
Ram Gopal
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
