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

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1057

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Harvinder Singh Alias Harvinder Saran - Appellant
Versus
Satwant Kaur And Ors - Respondent
CR-1479-2021(O&M)
Decided On : 28-02-2022

Advocates:
Mr. Sushant Kareer, Advocate; for the Petitioner.; Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate; for Respondents.

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.

Headnote:

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Eviction - Bona fide personal necessity - Withdrawal of eviction petition with liberty to file fresh one

Fact of the Case:

The landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the respondents under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The petition remained pending for 14 years, and the landlord sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action.

Finding of the Court:

The court granted the landlord's request to withdraw the eviction petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, considering the recurring nature of the landlord's bona fide requirement.

Issues: The main issue was the landlord's request to withdraw the eviction petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the withdrawal of the eviction petition with liberty to file a fresh one, taking into account the recurring cause of action for the landlord's bona fide requirement.

Final Decision: The revision petition was disposed of, granting the landlord liberty to withdraw the eviction petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - The hearing of the case is being held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

2. Through this revision petition, the landlord assails the correctness of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 19.11.2019.

3. A petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking eviction of the respondents filed in the year 2008, is still pending. The petitioner's opportunity to lead further evidence was closed on 20.11.2013. Thereafter, on an application for recall of order dated 20.11.2013, the learned Rent Controller permitted the petitioner to lead further evidence vide an order dated 08.01.2014. The petitioner tendered affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and was cross-examined on two different occasions. However, subsequently in the revision petition, the order dated 08.01.2014 was stayed and, thereafter, it was set aside on 09.05.2019. Now, the Court has dismissed the application for recall of the order dated 20.11.2013 and has refused to grant any permission to thepetitioner to lead any evidence. It has been noticed that the petitioner claiming to be a Non-resident Indian (NRI), has filed the petition on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The petition remains pending for a period of 14 years.

4. After arguing at some length, the learned counsel after taking instructions from the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the main eviction petition with liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents failed to draw the attention of the Court to any legal impediment in the same.

6. Moreover, if the bona fide requirement of the landlord continues, the landlord has a recurring cause of action.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the revision petition is disposed of while granting liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the eviction petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, with liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action.

8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

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 Back to top