Back
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Savita Rani – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)
CM-8141-CII-2023
This is an application filed by the respondent under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC read with section 151 CPC for placing on record additional documents.
No ground is made out to place on record the additional documents. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
CR No.2483 of 2016
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, praying for setting aside the order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala vide which the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala, evicting the respondent from demised premises, was set aside, with a further prayer for upholding the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala; along with certain other prayers.
2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner had filed eviction petition Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973; against the respondent regarding the property bearing house tax No.3636, Timber Market, Ambala Cantonment. It was stated that earlier Smt. Indro Wati, widow of Madan Mohan was the owner of said pr
The court's decision was influenced by the findings of the Building Expert and the admission of the petitioner regarding ownership of commercial properties.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on conflicting evidence to determine the safety and fitness of the demised premises under the grounds for eviction, as provided in ....
Pleadings in eviction cases under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act should be interpreted liberally, allowing for additional issues to be framed based on the substance of the claims rather t....
A petitioner must include all relevant grounds in the original petition; failure to do so precludes the framing of additional issues later.
A landlord can seek eviction if a substantial part of the building is unsafe or unfit for habitation, without waiting for it to collapse.
The court affirmed that a landlord can seek eviction on grounds of a building being unsafe for habitation, and the need for reconstruction must be bona fide.
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
