Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
GURBIR SINGH
Narinder Pal (Deceased) Through His Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Promila Kumari – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Gurbir Singh, J.
Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.03.2006, passed by learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, whereby the judgment dated 29.04.2002, passed by learned Rent Controller, Garhshankar, dismissing ejectment petition filed by the respondents/landlords, was set aside and ejectment order was passed against the petitioner.
2. Briefly, case of the landlords (respondents herein) is that the shop in question was on rent with the tenant (petitioner herein) @ Rs.20/- per month for the last more than 50 years. Respondents Subhash Kumari and Promila Kumari purchased the said shop along with superstructure from Balbir Sen - the original co-sharer, vide sale deed dated 13.12.1985 and they had become owners to the extent of 1/2 share. Similarly, Vishwa Bandhu -original co-sharer sold his entire share along with superstructure and appurtenant rights in favour of respondents Raghubans Lal and Premwati and they also became owners in the said property to the extent of 1/2 share.
3. The ejectment of tenant (petitioner herein) was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent; premises in question was in dilapidated condition and was unsafe and unfit for h
Material alterations affecting rented property must permanently diminish value from the landlord's perspective to qualify for eviction under relevant law.
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.
The landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use, once established, justifies eviction, while the tenant must prove valid reasons for non-occupation.
The judgment establishes that the erection of permanent structures by a tenant without the landlord's consent, in violation of Section 16(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, can lead to ....
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....
Landlords are entitled to seek eviction based on personal necessity and change of user, and tenant's unauthorized use undermines property value, justifying eviction.
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....
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
