Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
RITU TAGORE
Mamta Sahni – Appellant
Versus
Sham Sunder – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision against order dismissing stay application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. grounds of the landlord's ejectment petition discussed. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. court's view on jurisdiction and grounds for stay. (Para 7) |
| 4. final decision of dismissal upheld. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
Ritu Tagore, J.
1. This revision is against the order dated 28.08.2024, whereby an application (Annexure P-3), filed by petitioner-tenant for staying the proceedings in Rent Petition No.94 of 2018 titled 'Sham Sunder Vs. Mamta Sahni and others' has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent/landlord had previously filed an ejectment petition (Annexure P4) on the material ground of personal bona fide need and necessity of the demise premises. That petition was dismissed, with the Court findings that respondent-landlord failed to prove the aforesaid ground. The learned counsel contends that appeal preferred by the landlord was also dismissed and that a revision petition bearing CR No.3772 of 2006 is pending adjudication before this Court. It is stated that on the same ground of bona fide personal necessity, the respondent-landlord has filed another petition (Annexure P-1). Learn
The pending revision petition does not justify staying proceedings in a subsequent ejectment petition with additional grounds.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to pleadings should not be allowed at a belated stage of the trial unless it is shown that the party could not have raised the matt....
The court emphasized the necessity for just and proper adjudication of the case and considered the genuineness and bonafide nature of the landlord's requirement in the context of amendment applicatio....
Amendments to rectify defects in pleadings regarding statutory provisions can be allowed at the initial stage of a case and do not change the nature of the petition.
The central legal point established is that the landlord's need for premises expansion, when sufficiently proven, shifts the burden to the tenants to rebut the same.
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
