Back
ANIL KSHETARPAL
Ramesh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Usha Rani – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - While assailing the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority, the present revision petition has been filed by the tenants.
2. Some facts are required to be noticed.
3. Originally the petition was filed by Smt. Kaushalya Rani on 18.05.2000. She asserted that after the death of her husband and son, she is residing with her daughter-in-law and grand children. The daughter-in-law has started the business of running a boutique and now she wants to expand and move to a commercial place. Previously, the daughter-in-law was running the business from residential premises. The eviction was also sought on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub letting.
4. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition on 20.07.2007, which was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, on 11.08.2011. In the High Court, the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority for deciding the matter afresh after deciding the pending application for additional evidence. Now the Appellate Authority on reappreciation of evidence has accepted the appeal and ordered eviction of the petitioners.
5. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at le
The sufficiency of pleadings and evidence in establishing bonafide necessity under Section 13 of the 1949 Act, and the authority of the Appellate Authority to re-appreciate evidence.
Tenants cannot contest eviction on grounds of non-pleaded necessary ingredients if not raised earlier, preserving the landlord's rights and addressing bona fide needs.
Substantive compliance with pleading requirements and limited scope of interference in revision petitions under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
The presumption of the genuineness of the landlord's requirement unless proven otherwise and the consideration that technicalities in pleading statutory ingredients would not be a ground by itself to....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that proposed amendments to an ejectment application under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 must be necessary for the proper and ju....
The landlady's bona fide necessity for the premises, supported by evidence and testimony, was upheld by the court.
A landlord's bona fide necessity for eviction must be established, and a prior dismissal does not preclude a new application if circumstances change.
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
