Landlords filed a revision against eviction dismissal, but counsel abandoned the petition pending a Supreme Court appeal in a consolidated matter.
The petition was dismissed as not pressed.
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# 2013.12.12 10:24I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
C.R. No.6652 of 2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.6652 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.12.2013
Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and Ors.
.............Petitioners
v.
Paras Ram and Ors.
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr. A.P. Bhandhari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).
Landlords are in revision against the concurrent judgments passed by both the Authorities below whereby their eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act seeking eviction of the respondents-tenants from the demised premises comprising of two rooms converted into shops in a portion of House No.1-E/23, NIT, Faridabad on the ground of arrears of rent, alteration and addition, personal necessity and change of user was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Faridabad vide judgment dated 22.5.2009, and the findings thereof affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Faridabad vide judgment dated 26.4.2010 while dismissing the appeal.
It is not in dispute that the present landlords had filed another eviction petition around nine years earlier on similar grounds and the same was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller and the said order upheld uptil this Court in C.R.No.2459 of 2002.
It is further not in dispute that the counsel for the landlord had made a statement on 01.04.2011 in the present revision seeking tagging of the present revision along with Civil Revision No.2459 of
#2#
C.R. No.6652 of 2010 (O&M)
At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the landlord submits that his clients have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid order dated 29.08.2013 in C.R.No.2459 of 2002. He, thus submits that at this stage in view of his clients having approached Hon'ble Supreme Court, he does not press this revision petition.
In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners at Bar, present petition is dismissed as not pressed.
December 10, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE
Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and Ors.
Paras Ram and Ors.
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
