Back
MANISHA BATRA
Gaushala, Bhiwani Road – Appellant
Versus
Chandi Ram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay condoned for petition filing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. grounds for ejectment noted. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. rent controller's order reversed by appellate authority. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. petitioner's evidence for impairment contested. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. burden of proof on landlord for impairment. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. alterations need proof for eviction. (Para 11) |
| 7. limited scope for revisional jurisdiction. (Para 12) |
| 8. revision petition dismissed. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
Manisha Batra, J.
CM-12937-CII-2017
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 69 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.
Main Case
The present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 30.07.2016 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Jind whereby, the findings as recorded by learned Rent Controller, Jind thereby, ordering ejectment of the respondent-tenant on the ground of material impairment of the demised premises, had been reversed and the petition filed by the present revision petitioner for ejectment of the respondent from the same, was dismissed.
2. The present petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act,
Material alterations affecting rented property must permanently diminish value from the landlord's perspective to qualify for eviction under relevant law.
Material impairment of value or utility of premises justifies eviction under Section 22(2)(c) of the Act.
The High Court holds that a landlord's need for property repairs overrides the tenant's claims, reaffirming limited revisional jurisdiction.
The landlord's bonafide requirement for commercial use of residential property is valid if tenants are already using it commercially, and previous dismissals do not bar new petitions based on new evi....
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.
Alterations made without permission by a tenant constitute grounds for eviction under sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, invalidating contrary findings of the appellate court.
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
