Punjab Rent Act -- Pleadings – Subsequent events -- Court at any stage of proceedings can take into consideration subsequent events and mould the relief -- On the issue of non-pleadings of ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act, if the landlord had failed to plead the ingredients but led evidence to that effect then the nonpleadings of ingredients is not fatal – Landlords have now got residential house vacated and are held to be having a bona fide necessity of the demised premises (SCF), which has been duly established on the basis of evidence led – Eviction order upheld. Vishal Garg v. Kanwaljit Kaur and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 92 (P&H).
Rent Act -- Death of landlord -- Whether the Legal Representatives of landlord are required to seek amendment of the eviction petition in order to set up their own case for the purpose of eviction of the tenants on the ground of personal necessity – Landlord had already taken a plea in the eviction petition and categorically stated on oath in his affidavit that that he wanted to settle his son -- All the requirements of law were complied with by landlord even before his death and rest has been complied by his widow who had stated in her examination that they do not possess any other commercial building in Chandigarh nor had vacated – Held, matter not requires a remand for the legal heirs of landlord to set up their own case. Vishal Garg v. Kanwaljit Kaur and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 92 (P&H).
Rent Act -- Eviction of tenant – Non-occupation by landlord -- Remedy of -- Safeguard is provided by the legislature, if landlord or his family for whose benefit eviction was obtained, fails to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months from the date of obtaining possession or where he puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order and direction that he shall be restored to possession of such building. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).
Rent Act -- It is the prerogative of the landlord to expand his business -- If landlord asserts that he requires the tenanted premises to expand his business, his need must be presumed as bonafide. -- Rent Controller shall not proceed to presume that alleged need is not bonafide -- This is not open to the Rent Controller to say that landlords are already having business in different countries and cities and are well settled in their lives, hence do not require demised premises for setting up Departmental Store of world repute in City -- Landlord is the best judge of his need and requirement -- If landlords want to open big Departmental Store in all the six floors of the building, tenant or Rent Controller have no business to dictate that landlords should start business in 1300 square feet ground floor area -- Every landlord has every right to expand business or to open new ventures. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).
Rent Act -- Merely because landlords have not filed eviction petition against all the tenants in one go for the same need and have filed petitions against the Corporation at the subsequent stage, does not mean that the landlords have no requirement for personal use and occupation of the entire building as set up by the landlords -- Landlord is the master of his case and need and if he decides to file petition against the tenants at different stages for the same need, then landlord’s need cannot be said to be malafide. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).
No comments:
Post a Comment