Section 13 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952) -- Three storeyed building over 10 Marla plot is permissible -- Mere fact that only ground floor was constructed at the time of letting out the premises to the tenant, will not be sufficient to infer that the landlord has granted right to use terrace as well -- Tenant does not have any right over the terrace of the ground floor on a building which admits construction of three floors -- Tenant is restrained from interfering in the enjoyment of the first and second floors of the building with all amenities. Smt. Vinit Khera v. Sewa Singh, 2011(2) L.A.R. 277 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide need – Presumption of -- Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide, rather, Rent Controller must proceed on the presumption that requirement is bona fide. Rajinder Parshad v. Rajinder Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 290 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide need – Need of the landlady is genuine and bona fide to establish the coaching classes for the increase of monthly income of the husband after his retirement -- It is not open to the tenant to say that there is open place where new construction can be raised to start coaching class -- Suitability of the accommodation as per the requirement of the landlady is a personal decision of the landlady which cannot be said to be wrong by the tenant or Rent Controller. Rajinder Parshad v. Rajinder Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 290 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide need – Every landlord has every right to increase the income neither tenant not Rent Controller can dictate that landlady should feel satisfied on the pension being received by the husband of the landlady. Rajinder Parshad v. Rajinder Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 290 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide need – Sale of property – Effect of -- Merely because certain properties were sold by the landlady, when husband of the landlady was in service, will not make landlady disentitled to seek eviction of the tenant to start coaching classes after the retirement of the husband of the landlady. Rajinder Parshad v. Rajinder Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 290 (P&H).
Section 13-B, 18-A – Constitution of India, Article 14 -- N.R.I. Landlord – Applicability of Punjab Act to Chandigarh by notification – Validity of -- Section 13-B providing for special right in favour of landlords under the category of Non-resident Indians -- Classification of Non-resident Indians, as a separate class of landlords, cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution -- Right to seek eviction on the ground of bonafide need is available to all landlords, only difference in the case of NRIs and certain other specified landlords is that right to contest eviction proceedings is governed by special procedure of requirement of obtaining leave to defend by making out a case under Section 18A of the Act -- Classification is not shown to be irrational -- Same has rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved i.e. providing speedy remedy to non-residents in bonafide need of premises let out to tenants -- Validity of impugned notification, extending the Punjab Act to Union Territory, Chandigarh, upheld. Asha Chawla & others v. Union of India & others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 420 (P&H DB).
Section 13(2)(i) – Arrears of rent -- Assessment of provisional rent – Denial of relationship of landlord-tenant – Effect of -- If relationship of landlord-tenant is denied by the tenant, then the Rent Controller is not supposed to assess the rent and to give an opportunity to the tenant to tender the rent -- Tenant first of all took false plea that he has paid entire amount of rent without any receipt and thereafter, himself denied the relationship of landlord–tenant between the parties and deposited lesser amount in the Court, which makes him defaulter and liable to be evicted. S.K. Kalia v. Om Parkash and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 427 (P&H).
Section 13(2)(iii) – Impair materially the value and utility of building -- Both the Courts below have recorded finding that tenant has converted a temporary structure of Barsati into a pucca room – Contention of landlord Barsati (temporary structure) was made on the roof for the purpose of keeping cots and drying the clothes and by converting it into a room without the consent of the landlords, there would be hardly any place to dry clothes and to keep cots and necessary heavyweight is put on the walls of the structure, which has not only diminished the value of the property, but has also caused danger to the load bearing walls of the construction – There is force in the argument of the landlords – Eviction order upheld. S.K. Kalia v. Om Parkash and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 427 (P&H).
Section 13 – Eviction petition – Question of Jurisdiction -- Undisputedly question of jurisdiction was not dealt with either by Rent Controller or by the Appellate Authority – Matter remanded Back to Rent Controller to frame issue of jurisdiction and to decide it on merits after hearing both the parties. Jai Bai v. Gurdas Singh, 2011(2) L.A.R. 430 (P&H).
No comments:
Post a Comment