Dismissed

Gursewak Singh v. Lalit Chaudhary @ Lalit Kishore

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Mar 2014CR/1437/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court disposed of a challenge against the appointment of a private architect as an expert to inspect premises in a tenancy dispute. The Court held that the appointment did not require interference as the landlord could examine the architect as a witness. The petitioner was left liberty to rebut evidence via their own expert.

What did the court decide?

Petition stands disposed of; petitioner at liberty to examine their own expert to rebut the evidence.

Gursewak Singh Vs Lalit Chaudhary @ Lalit Kishore — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1437 of 2014

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Civil Revision No. 1437 of 2014 Date of Decision: 28.3.2014.

Gursewak Singh

.......Petitioner

Versus

Lalit Chaudhary alias Lalit Kishore

¶9

.......Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. M.S.Dhami, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. R.S.Athwal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 10.2.2014 (Annexure P-5) whereby Vikas Chopra, Architect was allowed to inspect the demised premises and submit his report.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Rent Controller had erred in appointing a private architect as an expert to inspect the premises in question.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that Vikas Chopra, Architect is the expert witness of the landlord and is sought to be examined by the landlord.

¶18

In the present case, respondent has moved the ejectment petition against the petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Respondent moved an application that a technical expert be appointed to inspect the

¶19

Singh Gurpreet 2014.04.01 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶20

Civil Revision No. 1437 of 2014

¶21

-2-

¶22

premises in question and submit his report. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has submitted that Vikas Chopra, Architect has been appointed as an expert as requested by the respondent-landlord as his witness. Landlord is at liberty to examine any expert in support of his case. In these circumstances, the fact that the Rent Controller has appointed Vikas Chopra, Architect to inspect the demised premises and submit his report, does not call for any interference. The said architect is sought to be examined by the landlord as his witness. Petitioner would be at liberty to rebut the said evidence by examining his expert.

¶23

In these circumstance, no interference by this Court is

¶24

called for.

¶25

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶27

March 28, 2014 Gurpreet

¶28

Singh Gurpreet 2014.04.01 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Gursewak Singh v. Lalit Chaudhary @ Lalit Kishore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gursewak Singh v. Lalit Chaudhary @ Lalit Kishore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldev Kumar Vs Vipan Kumar and Anr.

Jagtar Singh Vs Balbir Kaur

Balraj Vs Wazir and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs Lalit Chaudhary @ Lalit Kishore

Gurinder Singh Grewal and Others Vs Guru Nanak Education Trust and Others

Navsher Singh Nain Vs Jai Kiran Walia and Others