Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Daljit Singh Sandhu - Appellant
Versus
M/s Bhatia Electronics - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 505 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 04-05-2022
Section 13-B - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the order and allowing the petitioner to file an amended petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a landlord, filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. His application for permission to correct the caption of the petition was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the order and allowing the petitioner to file an amended petition. The respondent was granted an opportunity to file a fresh application for leave to defend.
Issues: The petitioner claimed that he should have filed a petition under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, which has superseded the previous Act. The petitioner also claimed eviction of the respondents on the ground of bonafide necessity as he is a Non-Resident Indian.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the grounds for eviction and the applicability of the 1995 Act, ultimately allowing the revision petition and granting the petitioner an opportunity to file an amended petition.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order, and allowed the petitioner to file an amended petition. The respondent was granted an opportunity to file a fresh application for leave to defend.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The petitioner herein is a landlord. He has filed the petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.The case is at the initial stage. His application for permission to correct the caption of the petition has been dismissed.
2. In substance, the petitioner claims that he should have filed a petition under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, which has superseded the previous Act, namely the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Rent Controller has dismissed the application.
3. The petitioner claims eviction of the respondents on the ground of bonafide necessity as he is a Non-Resident Indian. The aforesaid ground is also available under the 1995 Act.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the present revision petition is allowed. The order, under challenge, is set aside. Let the petitioner file an amended petition. The respondent is stated to have already filed an application for leave to defend. After the amended petition is presented, the respondent shall be granted an opportunity to file a fresh application for leave to defend, within a period of 15 days from today.
5. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.
The court's decision was influenced by the applicability of the 1995 Act and the grounds for eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
The recurring nature of the landlord's bona fide requirement justifies granting liberty to withdraw the eviction petition and file a fresh one on the same cause of action.
The genuine requirement of Non Resident Indian landlords for immediate possession under Section 13B of the 1949 Act was accepted, and there was no prohibition in filing the petition through a power o....
The court emphasized the importance of the Rent Controller considering the assertions made in the tenants' affidavit when determining their entitlement to leave to contest an eviction petition.
The court's decision emphasized the intention of the statute as a beneficial legislation and the need to do substantive justice between the parties while following procedural law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
