Back
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Satbir – Appellant
Versus
Rohtak Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition assails the order dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak vide which warrants of possession have been issued with a further direction to the bailiff to break open the locks of the shop in possession of the petitioner. The Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station has also been directed to provide necessary police help.
2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the respondent-landlord i.e. The Rohtak Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. instituted an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') seeking eviction of the petitioner from a shop in Rohtak on the grounds of non-payment of rent and impairment of the value and utility of the shop on account of demolishing of the front portion of the shop and attempts of raising illegal construction etc. The eviction petition was allowed by the Rent Controller, Rohtak on 30.10.2010. An appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed on 08.10.2012. No execution petition was filed till the year 2019. It ha
Court confirms the eviction of a tenant for non-payment of rent as substantiated by concurrent findings.
Once an issue has been adjudicated in court, it cannot be re-litigated in later proceedings, maintaining the authority of previous judgments on the same matter.
The court upheld possession orders and auction sales under tenancy law due to the tenant's substantial arrears and failure to vacate.
Eviction proceedings under the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act are valid if the tenant fails to deposit rent as required, and the landlord's bona fide requirement can justify evict....
The tenant's failure to pay the assessed provisional rent justifies eviction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.
The tenant's failure to raise objections during the proceedings precluded the court from entertaining the objection at the revisional stage.
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
