DEEPAK GUPTA
R. D. Sales Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Anoop Singh Gill – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.
This order shall dispose of four revision petitions titled above, as all of them are between same parties and pertain to the same demised premises. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as “landlord” and “tenant”, i.e. as per their status before the trial Court.
2.1. Admittedly, the demised premises, i.e. Shed No.433-A, Industrial Area, Phase-ll, Chandigarh was originally allotted to Smt. Swaraj Katari by Chandigarh Small Industries Department Corporation Limited. M/s R.D. Sales Corporation through its proprietor Rakesh Gupta (petitioner herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the right side portion to the extent of 12 Ft. X 60 Ft., vide rent note dated 19.10.1994 on monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- including water and electricity charges, for a period of 11 months. Said rent was later on enhanced to Rs. 8,500/-.
2.2. On 18.04.2006, Smt. Swaraj Katari entered into an agreement to sell (Ex.P-8) with Mr. Anoop Singh Gill — landlord (respondent herein) for consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-. She also executed irrevocable general power of attorney dated 17.04.2006 (Ex.P-9), affidavit dated 18.04.2006 (Ex.P-7) and Will dated 04.05.
Ajit Singh and another Vs. Jeet Ram and another
Apollo Zipper India Limited v. W. Newman and Co. Ltd.”
Bismillah Be (Dead) by L.Rs v. Majeed Shah”
Boorugu Mahdev & Sons and Anr. V. Sirigiri Narasing Rao and Ors.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh
J.C. Mehra v. Smt. Kusum Gupta’
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd.”
K.D. Dewan v. Harbhajan S. Parihar”
Pardeep Kumar v. Rajesh Bhanot and another”
Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash”
Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999 (6) SCC 222)
Smt. Ram Piari v. M/s. Delhi Fruit Company and Ors.”
Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another”
A landlord under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act can seek eviction for non-payment of rent and bonafide necessity, regardless of ownership status, as long as the landlord-tenant relations....
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.
Tenancy and Land laws - Eviction - There is nothing that petitioners have been able to bring forth to indicate that finding has been arrived at by a misreading of facts or omitting relevant evidence ....
The genuine need of the landlord for eviction under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
A tenant cannot dispute the title of the landlord, and genuine need for premises must be established without alternative accommodation for eviction to be warranted. Adverse possession claims require ....
Tenants denying landlord-tenant relationship cannot seek rent assessment; landlady's bona fide need for eviction upheld.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.