Back
VIKAS BAHL
Akaljot Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gulshan Rai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Bahl, J.
Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment dated 27.03.2018 vide which the Rent Controller had partly allowed the petition filed under Section 13 -B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 1949 Act”) for the ejectment of the present petitioner from the shop in question. Challenge is also to the judgment dated 10.10.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioner was also dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the rent petition which had been filed is not stricto sensu under the provisions of Section 13 -B of the 1949 Act, inasmuch as, other pleas in addition to the pleas which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of a petition under Section 13 -B of the 1949 Act have also been raised. It is submitted that a plea with respect to the present petitioner not paying the arrears of rent had been raised by the respondent and with respect to the same, specific issue i.e., issue No.1 was framed by the Rent Controller and under the said issue, the assessment order dated 15.01.2018 was pas
Ejectment petitions under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act may contain ancillary claims, and landlords have discretion over their property needs, regardless of tenant opposition.
The court emphasized the importance of the Rent Controller considering the assertions made in the tenants' affidavit when determining their entitlement to leave to contest an eviction petition.
The heavy burden on the tenant to prove that the landlord's requirement is not genuine and the special rights granted to NRI landlords under Section 13-B of the Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the stringent requirements for ejectment of a tenant by an NRI landlord under Section 13-B of the Act, 1949, and the presumption in favor of the....
The limitations and entitlements outlined in Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, regarding the recovery of immediate possession by a non-resident Indian owner, and the s....
Misquoting the wrong provision or non-mentioning of any provision would not be sufficient to take away the jurisdiction of the court.
The court's decision was influenced by the applicability of the 1995 Act and the grounds for eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
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
