Unanticipated holidays
Rent Laws -- Presiding officer on leave – Duties of the parties -- In case of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the Presiding Officer of a Court being absent owing to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed for the day in question shall be deemed to be automatically adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it shall be the duty of the parties or their counsel (but not of witnesses) to attend the Court on that day. Surinder Kumar and another v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011(3) L.A.R. 236 (P&H).
Unauthorised occupation / occupants / persons
Public Premises laws – Eviction petition – Res-judicata -- First application was rejected on the ground that the lessees had been making payment of the lease amount, which was duly accepted by the respondents -- After the year 1983, no lease amount has been received by the respondents although an offer to make payment was made by the appellants -- Land owner i.e. the State of Punjab expressed its intention to start cultivation on its own -- Second petition, thus, is not barred by the principle of res-judicata as it is a distinct and different cause of action. Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab etc., 2011(3) L.A.R. 251 (P&H DB).
Public Premises Laws -- Extension of lease – Right of – Lessee was always prepared to pay the additional rents for every year commencing from the date when the petition was filed – Held, if there are rules, which allow for extension of lease beyond the initial period and if the tenant is willing to pay the additional rent as required under the Rules, he cannot be treated as an unauthorized occupant to justify an action for eviction -- Order of eviction made by the authorities under the Public Premises Act cannot be sustained and it is quashed. Krishan Kumar v. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 374 (P&H).
Public Premises laws – Mesne Profit -- A person, who is in wrongful possession, should not only be removed from that place as early as possible but be compelled also to pay for wrongful possession of that premises by imposing fine, penalty and costs and any leniency would seriously affect the credibility of the judicial system -- No litigant can derive and can claim benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a Court of law and the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by the delayed action of Courts. Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab etc., 2011(3) L.A.R. 251 (P&H DB).
Punjab Public Laws – A mere intention to pay the rent cannot create a document of lease or obtain a status of lessee entitling to continue in possession -- In the absence of any document, all that could be stated is that the petitioner continued as a tenant from month to month -- Order of eviction cannot be interfered. Ram Chander v. State of Haryana through Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 357 (P&H).
Punjab Public Laws -- Eviction of tenant – Mesne profit -- So long as the case does not involve the issue of title and the ownership in Panchayat is admitted, the action for ejectment cannot be questioned unless the tenant has obtained a subsistence of right to continue in possession and shows that he has been paying the rent to term himself as being not in unauthorized occupation – Admittedly no rent had ever been paid during all the time when the proceedings were initiated and when the case was pending -- Order of ejectment passed under such circumstances would be perfectly justified -- Panchayat shall be at liberty to apply to the authority for determination of the mesne profits during the pendency of the proceedings in accordance with law. Ram Narain v. The Commissioner, Ferozepore Division, Ferozepore, and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 351 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Compensation – Eviction -- Appellant had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat, when failed to vacate, he has become unauthorized occupant – Appellant is not entitled to get any relief from the Court – Gram Panchayat has not initiated any action against the appellant to realize an amount towards use and occupation of the land, the Gram Panchayat directed to move an application immediately and realize the charges from the appellant towards unauthorized occupation of the land for more than four decades. Nathu Ram v. Joint Development Commissioner and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 82 (P&H DB).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Gair Mumkin Goradeh – Common purpose – Eviction of -- As per revenue record, the land vests in the Gram Panchayat and is being used as Gair Mumkin Goradeh, which admittedly is a common purpose -- Eviction was passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, on the basis of the demarcation report, which was upheld in appeal as well as in revision -- During pendency of the appeal, the disputed land was again demarcated and in the said demarcation also, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of land – Finding of facts recorded by both the courts below on the basis of two demarcation reports -- No ground to interfere. Bahadur Singh v. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 606 (P&H DB).
Undervaluation of Market Value
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Onus of proof -- Deviation from the Collector's rate would be possible only if it is shown that Collector's valuation does not reflect the market rate -- If the State that wants to contend that Collector's rate does not reflect the market rate and the market rate is even higher than the Collector's rate, the burden shall be on the State to give tangible materials to act on. Aggarwal Construction Company v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 608 (P&H).
Unprivileged Wills
Execution of -- Attestation of – Testator must sign or affix his mark on the Will or the same shall be signed by some other person as per his direction and in his presence -- Signature or mark of the testator or the signature of the person signing for him shall be placed in a manner which may convey the intention of the testator to give effect to the writing as a Will, which is also required to be attested by two or more persons, each of whom must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark on the Will or some other person sign the Will in the presence or as per the direction of the testator -- If the witness has received a personal acknowledgment from the testator of his signature or mark or the signature of other person signing on his behalf, then it is not necessary that both the witnesses shall simultaneously remain present -- No particular form of attestation is necessary. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
Execution of – Obliteration/interlineation/alteration in -- Effect of -- Four corrections have been made on pages 1 and 2 of the Will -- Figures written in letters (four) were substituted with numbers (3) and the name of one daughter was scored out (page 2) -- At the end of the Will, the testator appended his left thumb mark -- On the right side of thumb mark a line has been written with the ink pen/ball pen suggesting that the corrections/alterations were made prior to putting of left thumb mark by the testator -- However, the space between the last line of the typed Will and what was written with the ink pen/ball pen leaves no manner of doubt that the writing on the right side of the thumb mark was made after execution of the Will -- If the corrections/alterations had been made before the testator had appended his left thumb mark, there was no reason why the line showing deletion of the name of one daughter and corrections in the figures were not reflected in the typed Will and why the line was inserted in the little space left between the concluding portion of the Will and the space where the left thumb mark was put by the testator – Held, the corrections/alterations made in Will cannot be said to have been duly attested by the testator as per the requirement of Section 71 of the Act and the daughter is entitled to share in the property specified. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
Obliteration/interlineation/alteration in – Effect of -- Any alteration made in an unprivileged Will after its execution has no effect unless such alteration has been executed in the same manner in which the Will is executed -- Such alterations shall be deemed to be duly executed if the signature of the testator and the subscription of the witnesses is made in the margin or on some other part of the Will opposite or near to such alterations or at the foot or end or opposite to a memorandum referring to such alterations and written at the end or some part of the Will. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
Unsafe and unfit for human habitation
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 -- Rent Laws -- Eviction petition -- Compromise -- After reconstruction repossession will be given to tenant -- Withdrawal of petition -- Restoration of possession – Right of -- During the pendency of the eviction petition, a written compromise was arrived, according to which the tenant handed over vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord on the condition that he would let it out to him again after demolition and reconstruction, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,250/- including house tax – No decree passed, rather the possession was handed over by the tenant to the landlord -- View that if there was no order of eviction by the Court and the petition was only dismissed as withdrawn it would not attract the provisions of Section 13(6) of the Act, would not be tenable -- Authorities below disallowing the restoration of possession to tenant -- Revision against the orders allowed and the impugned orders set aside. Chhotey Lal v. Rajender Kumar, 2011(3) L.A.R. 154 (P&H).
No comments:
Post a Comment