Single judge dismissed the landlord's revision petition not pressed. Directed Rent Controller to dispose of pending eviction petition within six months.
Revision petition dismissed not pressed; eviction petition to be disposed within six months.
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 6906/2012(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR 6906/2012(O&M) Date of decision:19/09/2013
M/s Gurnam Singh and Company and others
.............Petitioners.
v.
M/s V.S.Enterprises and others
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.Kanwalvir Singh Kang,Advocate for the petitioners
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
Landlord is in revision aggrieved against the order dated 28.3.2012 (P5) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby his application for passing of eviction order for non-deposit of the arrears of provisional rent assessed vide order dated 22.1.2009(P2) within the stipulated period, has been dismissed.
It is apparent that the tenant had approached this Court aggrieved against the order dated 22.1.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh by filing Civil Revision No.1415/2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.8.2010 (P3) by permitting the tenant to deposit the arrears of provisional rent assessed within a period of one month in terms of the order dated 22.1.2009, however, the same was made subject to without prejudice to the rights of the landlord in view of the judgement rendered in Rakesh Wadhawan v M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, AIR 2002 SC 2004 and a
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.09.21 12:35 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
2
CR 6906/2012(O&M)
Division Bench judgement of this Court in Rajan @ Raj Kumar v Rakesh Kumar (Civil Revision NO.3577 of 2006, decided on 7.1.2010).
It is not in dispute that the tenant thereafter complied with the order dated 22.1.2009 in terms of the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 11.8.2010.
The grievance of the landlord is that in view of the settled law that the time for deposit of provisional rent assessed could not be extended in view of the provisions of the Rent Act, as interpreted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra), the learned Rent Controller was enjoined to pass the eviction order for non-deposit by the original stipulated date.
At the time of hearing, keeping in view the lack of proper assistance while passing order dated 11.8.2010, by this Court learned counsel for the landlord very graciously submits that he would not press this revision petition provided his eviction petition pending at the stage of evidence of landlord is ordered to be disposed of in a time bound manner.
The prayer being reasonable is liable to be accepted.
Accordingly, present revision petition is dismissed as not pressed. However, the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh is directed to dispose of the pending eviction petition in an expeditious manner preferably within six months from today.
19.09.2013. joshi
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.09.21 12:35 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition should be condoned given the landlord's willingness to drop it if a time-bound disposal order is issued.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rakesh Wadhawan v M/s Jagdamba Industrial CorporationReferred¶14
AIR 2002 SC 2004 · Who else cites this
Rajan @ Raj Kumar v Rakesh KumarReferred¶18
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.09.21
M/s Gurnam Singh and Company and others
M/s V.S.Enterprises and others
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
