Dismissed

Raj Kumar and Others v. Pritam Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jan 2014CR/353/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to lead secondary evidence to prove a notice of ownership transfer. The court held that since the landlord-tenant relationship was undisputed, the notice was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Application for permission to lead secondary evidence was dismissed; Revision petition allowed against the dismissal.

Raj Kumar and Others Vs Pritam Singh and… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 353 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Civil Revision No. 353 of 2013 Date of Decision: 24.1.2014.

Raj Kumar and others

.......Petitioners

Versus

Pritam Singh and others

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Bahadur Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶13

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 12.12.2012 (Annexure P-4) whereby application moved by the petitioners for permission to lead secondary evidence in order to prove notice dated 17.4.2000, was dismissed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that notice dated 17.4.2000, served upon the petitioners by Krishan, brother of respondent No. 1 that he had become owner of the premises in question, was very necessary to be proved on record.

¶17

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that in earlier litigation pending between the parties, petitioners had never challenged the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Even in the present case, in the written statement, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had not been specifically denied.

¶18

Singh Gurpreet 2014.01.30 15:38I attest to the accuracy and In the present case, respondent No. 1 has filed the integrity of this document chandigarh

¶19

-2-

¶20

Civil Revision No. 353 of 2013

¶21

petition for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against the petitioners. During the pendency of the case, an application was moved by the petitioners to lead secondary evidence to prove the notice dated 17.4.2000 (Annexure P-2). A perusal of Annexure P-2 reveals that Krishan had served notice on the petitioners that the shop in question had come to the share of Pritam Singh. In the present case, the relationship of landlord and tenant was not disputed by the petitioners. In these circumstances, notice dated 17.4.2000 is not necessary to be proved by the petitioners. Learned Rent Controller had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioners to enable them to prove the notice dated 17.4.2000 by way of secondary evidence.

¶22

No ground for interference is made out.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶25

January 24, 2014 Gurpreet

¶26

Singh Gurpreet 2014.01.30 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Raj Kumar and Others v. Pritam Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar and Others v. Pritam Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish and Anr. Vs Anita and Anr.

Rajeev Sharma Vs Daljeet Singh

Raghuvinder Chattley Alias Ghugi Vs Yagya Minor through Dharam Parkash Kaushal

Nelson Christoper Vs Pritam Singh Dhaliwal

Padam Chand & Ors. Vs Madhu Sudan Aggarwal & Ors.

Vinod Kumar Chhabra Vs Managing Committee Arya College Panipat (Regd)