Back
KARAMJIT SINGH
Dhanwanti Devi – Appellant
Versus
Sardari Lal Jain – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Karamjit Singh, J.
The appellant/defendant has filed this appeal against the judgment/decree dated 4.3.1992 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment/decree dated 14.5.1990 passed by Sub Judge, First Class, Ludhiana, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1-Sardari Lal Jain was inducted as a tenant in the shop situated in Hindi Bazar, Ludhiana by Amar Nath its previous owner at monthly rent of Rs. 17/- in the year 1956. Said shop was purchased by appellant-Dhawanti Devi from Amar Nath in 1965 and then the plaintiff started paying rent to her and the plaintiff regularly paid rent up to 31.3.1980. In the meantime, appellant-Dhanwanti Devi and respondent No.2-Parkash Chand conspired to get vacate the shop from the plaintiff. The appellant filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (in short, "the Rent Act") against the plaintiff on the ground of non-payment of rent and some other grounds on 15.4.1983. The rent petition remained pending up to 16.1.1985 wherein the plaintiff also fil
A petition can only be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on specific grounds; a subsequent rent petition is not barred by res judicata if it claims rent for a new period.
The tenant must apply for leave to contest within the statutory period, and the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing such an application.
The burden of proof regarding rent payments and the applicability of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 were central legal points established in the judgment.
The Rent Control Legislation is a self-contained code, and principles of res judicata do not apply when circumstances change between petitions filed under different Acts.
The tenant's admission of rent payment to the landlord after the alleged property transfer influenced the court's decision to uphold the eviction.
The admission made by a tenant regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant is considered as the best evidence, and the question of title is beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that genuine necessity and ownership rights of the petitioner, along with the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act, justified the grant of possess....
The eviction of a tenant can be justified based on wilful default, evidenced by non-payment of rent, regardless of claims about the landlord's identity or agreements made post-tenancy.
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
