SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(P&H) 774

SABINA
Cenlub Engineers – Appellant
Versus
Master Nimit – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for the respondent.

Judgment

Sabina, J.

Respondent had filed the petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent.

Petitioner, in its reply, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further averred that the respondent was not the owner of the property in question. It was averred that the lease deed dated 1.12.1986 was bogus document and was liable to be declared as null and void.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-

1. Whether the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner vide lease deed dated 1.12.86 on the monthly rent of Rs. 1600/- as alleged ? OPP

2. Whether the respondent has failed to pay the arrears of rent from April 2001 to November 2002, if so, to what effect? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

4. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition ? OPD

5. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition ? OPD

6. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the present petition ? OPD

7. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joi



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top