Back
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Vinod Kohli – Appellant
Versus
Keemti Lal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for eviction on grounds of non-payment and personal requirement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on requirements and evidence for eviction under the act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court’s interpretation of landlord's requirement and tenant's position. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court orders eviction of tenant and sets timeline. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)
This is a petition filed by the petitioner/landlord under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, challenging the judgment dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge/Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, whereby rent appeal filed by the respondent/tenant has been allowed and the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts, as mentioned in the pleadings, are that the petitioner filed a rent eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), asserting therein that he is the owner and landlord of the premises in question. The respondent has been in possession of the premises as a tenant under the petitioner on the re
The genuine need of the landlord for eviction under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
The eviction was upheld on grounds of bona fide requirement and established landlord-tenant relationship, negating the appellant's claims.
Pre-amendment eviction petitions from non-residential premises maintainable retrospectively due to Supreme Court on Article 14 violation. Landlord's bonafide need for prime own shops upheld despite r....
Bona fide requirement for eviction is determined by the landlord's genuine need, not dictated by tenant's preferences.
Section 25 empowers the Rent Controller to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel the production of evidence as the Court is empowered under CPC.
The moral duty of the father to settle his son well and the absence of other commercial property justified the eviction.
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
