Back
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
Harpreet Singh Anand – Appellant
Versus
Manjeet Kaur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.—Instant Revision Petition, invoking Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has been preferred against the order dated 11.06.2018, passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla, H.P., in CMA No. 54-6/2018, in Rent Case No. 18-2 of 17/12, whereby application preferred by the tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) for amendment of reply to the main petition has been dismissed.
2. Parties herein are being referred hereinafter as per their status before the Rent Controller, i.e. landlord and tenants.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
4. Landlord has instituted the Rent Petition for eviction of premises in reference in April 2012 on the ground of bonafide requirement for herself and her unmarried daughter namely Bhupinder Kaur, by starting and establishing business of sale of Readymade Garments and ladies suits etc., and also arrears of rent by tenants from 01.09.2011 onwards.
5. During pendency of the Rent Petition, on account of family settlement, premises in reference was allotted to Bhupinder Kaur. Whereafter, an application un
CPC is not applicable to rent cases as it is applicable strictly to Civil Suits, but principles contained in provisions of CPC are applicable for adjudication of Rent Petition also.
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 appellate court must provide detailed reasoning for its decisions, reflecting a conscious application of mind to all issues, while the revisional jurisdiction does not allow for a re-hearing of f....
Tenants cannot challenge the landlord's title in eviction proceedings; only the landlord-tenant relationship is relevant under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
A landlord's bona fide necessity for eviction must be established, and a prior dismissal does not preclude a new application if circumstances change.
Court affirmed that revising authority cannot re-evaluate factual findings unless they are grossly erroneous or perverse, affirming the standards of evidence interpretation in eviction cases.
The Rent Controller cannot condone any delay in filing a leave to defend application, and a corporate entity can maintain an eviction petition for its bona fide need.
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
