Dismissed¶21

(O&M) Avtar Singh v. Parsain Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Feb 2025CR/3631/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision (CR-3631-2008(O&M)), Punjab and Haryana High Court, decided 25.02.2025 by Justice Anil Kshetarpal. Keywords: bona fide necessity; subsequent events/marriage of daughter; date of filing test; delay in disposal; tenant eviction; limited scope of rent revision; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh 2014(9) SCC 78; concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld; miscellaneous applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

The bona fide requirement of the landlord is required to be examined on the date of filing of the eviction petition; when the eviction decree was passed in 2006, the landlord's daughter was unmarried, so her subsequent marriage and settlement in Goa cannot alter the position. ¶19

(O&M) Avtar Singh Vs Parsain Kumar — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CR-3631-2008(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR-3631-2008(O&M) Date of decision : 25.02.2025

¶5

Avtar Singh(Deceased) through his LRs ...Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Parsain Kumar(Deceased) through his LRs ...Respondent

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶9

Present: Ms. Kudrit Kaur Sara, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Surju Puri, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

¶12

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner herein is a tenant who was ordered to be evicted concurrently by the Rent Controller which in appeal was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The struggle of the landlord continues even after a passage of 25 years. The petition seeking eviction of the petitioner was filed in the year 1999, which was allowed in 2006. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed in 2008. However, the adjudication of revision petition filed in this Court has taken 17 years.

¶14

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the eviction of the petitioner was sought on the ground of bona fide necessity of daughter who is now married and settled in Goa. Hence, the Court should take notice of subsequent developments.

¶15

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned

¶16

NEERAJ 2025.02.28 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CR-3631-2008(O&M) -2-

¶18

counsel representing the parties.

¶19

In fact, it is failure on the part of the Courts to take so long. The tenant cannot derive benefit out of delay in disposal of the petitions. The bona fide requirement of the landlord is required to be examined on the date of filing of the petition. When eviction decree was passed in the year 2006, the landlord's daughter was unmarried.

¶20

The scope of interference in a rent revision is extremely limited in view of judgment passed by the Five Judgment Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ' Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh', 2014(9) SCC 78.

¶21

Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶22

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

¶23

disposed of.

¶24

(ANIL KSHETARPAL) 25.02.2025 JUDGE neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

¶25

NEERAJ 2025.02.28 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(O&M) Avtar Singh v. Parsain Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Avtar Singh v. Parsain Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ved Parkash Vs State of Hy.

State of Hy. Vs Ram Kanwar etc.

Staet Ofhy. Vs Karan Singh etc.

State of Punjab Vs Gurmail Singh

State of Punjab Vs Rajinder Kaur

Surinderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.