Dismissed

Superintendent of Police and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Aug 2024CR/1942/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State police sought condonation of 296 days' delay in filing revision against eviction order for a police post premises. Delay application dismissed; petitioners directed to vacate by 31.08.2024 on clearing rent arrears, failing which mesne profits at Rs.50,000 per month payable from the In-charge's personal pocket.

What did the court decide?

Delay application dismissed; petitioners directed to vacate premises by 31.08.2024 after clearing arrears, else mesne profits @ ₹50,000/month from 01.09.2024 payable personally by police Chowki In-cha

Superintendent of Police and Anr. Vs Jasbir… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

********

¶3

123

¶4

CM-5666-CII-2023 in/and CR-1942-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.:01.08.2024

¶5

Superintendent of Police and another …..Pe66oners Vs.

¶6

Jasbir Kaur and another .….Respondents

¶7

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶8

Present:Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the pe��oners.

¶9

Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the respondents.

¶10

¶11

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Along with the main revision pe��on, pe��oner has moved applica�on bearing No. CM-5666-CII-2023 under Sec�on 5 of the Limita�on Act, 1963 read with Sec�on 151 CPC to condone the delay of 296 days in filing the pe��on.

¶13

It is contended by learned counsel that pe��on under Sec�on 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Evic�on) Act, 1973 filed by the respondent- landlady for evic�on of the police department/police post from the demised premises was accepted by learned Rent Controller on 23.08.2017. The appeal filed by the tenant i.e. pe��oner herein was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 16.02.2021. The proposal of the District A9orney, Yamuna Nagar to the Legal Remembrancer and Administra�ve Secretary to the Government, Haryana to file the appeal/revision against the order of the Appellate Authority was not acceded to and so, on the basis of opinion given by the District A9orney,

¶14

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.08.02 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CM-5666-CII-2023 in/and CR-1942-2023 (O&M) -2-

¶16

the present revision is being filed, considering the fact that in the demised premises, police post is housed, which is located in Hamida Colony, the most crime-infested area and so, it is in the larger public interest to keep the police post there for maintenance of the law and order situa�on. It is submi9ed that in all these circumstances, delay of 296 days has been caused.

¶17

A<er hearing learned counsel for the appellant- State, this Court is absolutely not convinced with the reasons for delay of 296 days in filing this revision. It is quite unfortunate that the defenders of the law have become sheer tress-passer, as despite the fact that ejectment order was passed against the pe��oners herein by the Rent Controller on 23.08.2017 and their appeal was dismissed on 16.02.2021, pe��oner are s�ll holding on to the demised premises and are inven�ng one or the other way to delay the vaca�on thereof. Not convinced with the reasons for delay, the applica�on stands dismissed.

¶18

Faced with the aforesaid situa�on, learned counsel for the pe��oners pray to grant a period of 09 months to vacate the premises.

¶19

The prayer made by learned counsel for the pe��oner is absolutely not jus�fied. As no�ced above, pe��oners have already taken a long �me in not vaca�ng the premises despite acceptance of the rent pe��on by Rent Controller and dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. At least, a<er dismissal of the appeal by Appellate Authority, the pe��oners had sufficient �me to look for the alterna�ve accommoda�on. Besides, with the dismissal of the applica�on for condona�on of delay, pe��oners are le< with no right to seek any further indulgence of this Court to grant them more �me to vacate the premises.

¶20

Having no�ced all the aforesaid facts, pe��oners are hereby directed to vacate the demised premises immediately or at the most up to 31.08.2024. It is subject to the condi�on that they will clear all the arrears of

¶21

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.08.02 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CM-5666-CII-2023 in/and CR-1942-2023 (O&M) -3-

¶23

rent/user charges/mesne profits. It is further made clear that in case the pe��oner fail to vacate the demised premises up to 31.08.2024 and the landlords (respondents herein) are compelled to file execu�on to seek actual possession of the demised premises, in that eventuality, the pe��oner will have to pay mesne profits/user charges @ ₹50,000/- per month with effect from 01.09.2024 onwards �ll the actual possession is delivered and said payment is to be made from the personal pocket of the In-charge of the concerned police Chowki which is housed in the demised premises.

¶24

Disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE August 01, 2024 Nee�ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶26

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.08.02 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Superintendent of Police and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Superintendent of Police and Anr. v. Jasbir Kaur and Anr.

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

Vandana Kapoor (Since Deceased) Vs Sonam Nagrath and Ors.

Akhtari Vs the State of Haryana

Vandana Kapoor (Since Deceased) through Her Lrs and Another Vs S.K. Nagrath (Decesased) through His Lrs

Jogi Ram Vs Ram Singh etc.

Prem Kumar and Ors. Vs Kartar Kaur

(O&M) Amrik Singh and Others Vs Mohinder Singh Nd Others