Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
Puran Prakash Goel – Appellant
Versus
Chaman Lal Vaidya – Respondent
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
As both these petitions arise out of the same rent proceedings which have been initiated against the present petitioners by the land owners under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, they are being decided vide common judgment.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 16.11.2022, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed and also by an order passed by the learned Rent Controller, dated 16.11.2022, in an application filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure by the land owners, in terms thereof, the apPplication has been allowed and the prayer of the applicants therein to carry out certain amendments in the petition has been allowed.
3. Learned Counsel for the petit ioners herein submitted that the eviction petition was vague, incomplete, was not containing the details of the demised premises and it was in this backdrop that the petitioners filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. As per him, the application has been erroneously rejected by the learned Court below.
4. Before proceeding further, it may be
Minor omissions in eviction petitions do not nullify cause of action; the essence lies in establishing necessary facts for a decree.
Non-maintainability of subsequent petition on the same cause of action after the dismissal of the earlier petition on account of non-prosecution.
A litigant's right to file and maintain an application is fundamental and should not be curtailed without proper legal basis.
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.
Landlords must disclose all properties in eviction petitions, but amendments to correct omissions are allowable unless deliberate concealment is evident.
The landlord and tenant relationship is established when rent is received, and the question of ownership is not required to be determined in eviction cases under the Act of 2001.
The court established that the suit could continue with the original plaintiff for the benefit of the new owner, as per Order XXII, Rule 10 of the CPC, despite the sale of the premises to a third par....
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
