Usha Jindal vs Surjit Kaur (since deceased through L. Rs)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1764

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Usha Jindal – Appellant
Versus
Surjit Kaur (since deceased through L. Rs) – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. Anupam Gupta Senior, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Jain, Mr. Akshay Jain, Mr. Gautam Pathania, Mr. Akshay Bhan Senior, Advocate, Mr. Santosh Sharma, Mr. Sahil Mehndiratta, Mr. Ashutosh Dhankar

Table of Content
1. overview of landlord-tenant relationship and eviction petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. procedural history of eviction and appeal. (Para 5 , 6)
3. petitioners argue against findings of non-bonafide need. (Para 7)
4. respondents argue that landlord's need is not bonafide. (Para 8)
5. analysis of landlord’s arguments regarding requirements under rent act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. court clarifies landlord's rights regardless of acquisition reasons. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. court's final decision restoring eviction order. (Para 19 , 20)

Judgment

Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (in short, the Rent Act) impugning the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh as Appellate Authority; vide which the order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh; allowing the landlord’s petition for eviction, has been reversed; and along with certain other prayers.

2. The eviction petition was filed by landlord Raj Karan Jindal. However, before the decision of eviction petition he expired, and accordingly, now the proceedings are being carried out by his legal representat