Allowed

Ripudaman Mittal Etfc. v. Jaswant Singh Saggu

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jan 2014CR/3035/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the dismissal of the application for leave to contest an ejectment petition. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed that parties lead evidence as there was a triable issue regarding the landlord-tenant relationship.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; application for leave to contest the ejectment petition allowed.

Ripudaman Mittal Etfc. Vs Jaswant Singh Saggu — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

CR No. 3035 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

CR No. 3035 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.01.2014

¶5

Ripudamman Mittal and another

......Petitioners

Versus

Jaswant Singh Saggu

.......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.N.Singal,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Beant Singh,Advocate for Mr.B.S.Bhalla,Advocate for the respondent

¶11

SABINA, J.

¶12

Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 3.3.2012(Annexure P1) whereby application moved by the petitioners for leave to contest the petition, was dismissed by the Rent Controller.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The case of the petitioners was that they had taken the shop on rent from Joginder Singh in the year 1998. Electricity Connection was installed in the shop in question in the name of Tirath Ram. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court Rachpal

¶14

Singh and others vs. Gurmit Kaur and others 2010(1)LAR 254 wherein it has been held as under:-

¶15

“If some triable issues are raised then the controversy can be properly adjudicated after ascertainment of truth through cross-

¶16

CR No. 3035 of 2012 (O&M)

¶17

¶18

examination of witnesses who have filed their affidavits and other material documents. Burden is on the landlord to prove his requirement and his assertion is required to be tested more so when the status of the respondent has been specifically challenged and also when the landlord-tenant relationship is in question. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the common order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petitions 4096 of 2007 and connected matters dated 28.4.2008.”

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the respondent was a non-resident Indian and was owner of the shop in question. Hence, the question as to whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not material.

¶20

In the present case, respondent has sought ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that he was a non-resident Indian and now wanted to return to India and required the shop in question for his personal use. Petitioners by filing an application for leave to contest the ejectment petition have denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It has been averred by the petitioners that they had taken the shop in question on rent from Joginder Singh in the year 1998 and the electricity connection in the shop was also installed in the name of Tirath Ram. Thus, in the present case, there is a triable issue as to whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Parties would be required to lead their evidence in this regard. In these circumstances, learned Rent Controller erred in dismissing the application filed by the

¶21

CR No. 3035 of 2012 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

petitioners for leave to contest the ejectment petition.

¶24

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 3.3.2012 (Annexure P1) is set aside . Consequently the application moved by the petitioners for leave to contest the Rent petition is allowed.

¶25

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶26

January 22, 2014

¶27

arya

Ripudaman Mittal Etfc. v. Jaswant Singh Saggu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ripudaman Mittal Etfc. v. Jaswant Singh Saggu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Parkash Chopra Vs Nawal Kishore Chopra

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs Radha Kishan and Ors.

Altaf Ur Rehman Vs Punjab Wakf Board etc.

Surinder Mahajan and Ors. Vs Ajit Sanghera

Harish Kumar and Ors. Vs Rambhaj and Ors.

(O&M)Parmod Kumar Vs Prit Pal Sharma @ Prithi Pal Sharma