East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948)
Section 21, 42 – C.O. inspected the spot in the presence of the parties and after hearing them, correctly verified the major portion and then accordingly amended the scheme of allotment – Matter was re-examined by the SO, who dismissed the appeal -- ADCH set aside the well reasoned orders, without any basis by a single vague line that the CO has not conducted the spot investigation rightly, which is contrary to the record – Moreover, the private respondents could have challenged the orders in appeal u/s 21(4) instead of straightway rushing to ADCH under section 42 of the Act – ADCH ought to have discussed the entire material on record and was legally required to record valid reasons for arriving at a right conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties in the right perspective -- Order is held to be cryptic, non-speaking and against the principles of natural justice -- Order cannot legally be maintained. Gurmail Singh and others v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 136 (P&H).
Section 42 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 10-A -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 5 – Shamlat land -- Exchange of land – Power of Director – Director Consolidation Haryana allowed the exchange, de hors the powers vested in Director Consolidation u/s 42 of the Consolidation Act – Property falling in shamlat deh can only be exchanged if the provisions of 1961 Act and the Rules are complied with not only in letter but also in their spirit -- None of the conditions provided under Rule 5 of the Rules has been followed, rather, under a Statute which is alien to the issue, exchange of Gram Panchayat land has been allowed -- Held, exchange of land of Gram Panchayat allowed by Director Consolidation, is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and for reasons de hors the law that governs such issues -- Order is also fanciful, injudicious, irresponsible and unaccountable. Maherdin & others v. Smt. Medha & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 119 (P&H).
Section 42 -- Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(3), 5-B – Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 4,9 -- Landlord’s permissible area – Determination of -- Shortfall while in consolidation proceedings -- After holding of the property is determined, any action had been taken independently under the Consolidation Act and consequently the owner suffers any shortfall within the permissible area, the owner could have had a remedy under the Consolidation Act itself – Prescribed Authority had no power to reopen the issue of his surplus, the owner is entitled to approach the Authorities under the Consolidation Act. Baini Singh v. State of Haryana through the Collector, Rohtak and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 694 (P&H).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Chandigarh) Act, 1982 (42 of 1982)
Section 15(3) – Appellate Authority’s Jurisdiction – Remand of case – Jurisdiction of -- Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to remand the whole case to the Controller for fresh decision however, in its discretion is entitled to make such further inquiry, either himself or through Controller -- Impugned order of remand is modified to the extent that instead of deciding the whole case a fresh, the Rent Controller will record a finding on issue framed by the Appellate Authority after allowing the parties opportunities to lead evidence. Raghu Nath Jalota’s case AIR 1980 (P&H) 188 relied. Smt.Prabha Sehgal v. Shri Subhash Sahoonja, 2011(3) L.A.R. 692 (P&H).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949)
Section 1, 13-B – NRI Landlord/Owner – Summary right of eviction – Object of -- Object of granting summary right of eviction to a Non Resident Indian is to provide mechanism for possession of their own residential building, as an exception to rigid legal provisions of the existing provisions of the law -- Such right is manifested when right of eviction is conferred on an owner. Smt. Bachan Kaur and others v. Kabal Singh & Another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB).
Section 2(a), 2(d), 2(g) -- Building – Residential building – Non-residential building -- If there is a zoning or a scheme or there is a prohibition for using a building for non-residential purpose in a residential area, then a part of the said building even if it is not used for any residential purposes, would remain residential building. S. Narinder Singh and another v. Manohar Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).
Section 2(a), 2(d), 2(g) -- Building – Residential building – Non-residential building -- If the building is essentially constructed pursuant to a plan sanctioned by a Competent Authority as a residential building and the shop carved out is not constructed on the basis of a sanctioned plan, then the very nature of the building would remain residential. S. Narinder Singh and another v. Manohar Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).
Section 2(a), 2(d), 2(g), 13 -- Building – Residential building – Non-residential building -- If some portion of a residential building, which is converted into a shop and is let out for non-residential purposes, is having no access from its backside or any side to the main residential building and has only one opening towards the main market, then it would essentially be a building used for a non-residential purpose in the residential building and would be a separate unit/building for the purpose of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant for non-residential purpose and not for residential purpose. S. Narinder Singh and another v. Manohar Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).
Section 2(a), 2(d), 2(g), Section 13 -- Residential building – Non-residential building – Eviction of tenant -- Demised premises is in the market where there is no zoning and there is no evidence that it is connected with the main residential building from any side and has been found to be continuously let out for non-residential purposes, therefore, the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant by treating it to be a non-residential building for non-residential purposes. S. Narinder Singh and another v. Manohar Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).
Section 2(dd), 2(i), 13-B – NRI Landlord/Co-Owner – Letting out/ Tenancy, not necessary to be by N.R.I. -- Letting out is not a sine-qua-non to maintain eviction petition -- Owner has a right to seek eviction after the period of five years from the date of becoming owner -- Once a person has become owner of the property, the tenancy rights being attached to the building stand transferred to him in the same manner as all other rights to a building, which has been purchased by him or her -- A co-owner NRI can seek eviction of the tenant in a building though the tenant was not inducted by such NRI and that it is not necessary that all other co-owners should be Non Resident Indians. Smt. Bachan Kaur and others v. Kabal Singh & Another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB).
Section 2(i), 13 – Co-owner -- Tenancy rights are indivisible – A co-owner is competent to induct tenant in part of whole of the building -- Tenant cannot be evicted from part of the tenant premises -- An act of the co-owner of inducting a tenant binds all other co-owners -- After a tenant has been inducted, he is a tenant under all the co-owners -- A co-owner who has not inducted a tenant can seek eviction of such tenant -- Right and liabilities of the co-owner creates a legal fiction of tenancy against all co-owner. Smt. Bachan Kaur and others v. Kabal Singh & Another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB).
Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 (1) (aa) – Eviction petition -- Additional evidence -- Additional evidence can be allowed even at the stage of argument i.e. till the Court becomes functuous officio, meaning thereby till the Court signs the judgment, the application can be entertained. Narinder Kumar v. Shri Sat Narayan Mandir through Trust Committee Hindu Panchayati Dharamshala and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 244 (P&H).
Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 (1) (aa) – Eviction petition -- Additional evidence -- Tenant wanted to lead additional evidence and want to produce sanctioned site plan of the construction raised on the demised premises, order of sanctioning the site plan, two statements of the parties in dispute and an order of the Civil Court – Tenant is trying to produce on record those documents which have not been manufactured by him and are coming from the custody of the authorities either judicial or quasi judicial – Dismissal of the application by Rent Controller is unsustainable. Narinder Kumar v. Shri Sat Narayan Mandir through Trust Committee Hindu Panchayati Dharamshala and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 244 (P&H).
Section 13(2)(i) -- Rules & Orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Rule 4 Chapter 1 Part K Volume 1 – Arrears of rent -- Tender of rent -- Holiday – Duties of the parties -- If the adjourned date is not an unanticipated holiday but a holiday already declared in the calendar for the judicial Courts for the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh or is a Sunday, then in that circumstance, Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders would not be applicable because it deals with only an unanticipated holiday and not a holiday which is already known -- In this regard, no rule is brought to the notice of the Court by the parties and in these circumstances, the parties appearing before the Court in such type of cases, can always pray for a date for proper orders. Surinder Kumar and another v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011(3) L.A.R. 236 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide need – Demised premises have fallen to the share of the landlord in a family partition effected between the brothers and mother after the death of their father -- Nothing on record to challenge the genuineness of the aforesaid documents -- Simple averment raised on behalf of the tenant that the aforesaid documents are a sham transaction, is bound to be rejected in the absence of any evidence to contradict the aforesaid documents -- Eviction order upheld. Surinder Dhingra v. Bhim Sain Arora, 2011(3) L.A.R. 230 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide need – Non-residential premises – Need for son -- Pleadings – The person who maintains an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide necessity, has to be a landlord and has to plead all the mandatory ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act in the eviction petition and even if the premises is required by the landlord for use and occupation of his son, the son of the landlord is not required to plead all the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act if he himself is not the landlord of the premises. Ajit Singh’s case 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 528 relied. Gurbaj Singh v. Parshotam Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 294 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide need – Pleadings -- Landlord failed to plead the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act but had led evidence to that effect, then non-pleading of the ingredients would not be fatal to warrant dismissal of the application for ejectment. Baldev Raj's case 2006(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 193, Parkash Ram's case 2007(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 186, Daulat Ram's case 1980 PLR 182 relied. Gurbaj Singh v. Parshotam Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 294 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide need – Pleadings -- Landlord pleaded that he required the demised shop for his own business after his retirement -- Landlord is the best judge of his needs -- Argument raised is that necessary ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act have not been pleaded and proved – If such necessary ingredients are not pleaded, the landlord is required to be provided with an opportunity to make necessary pleadings and it was imperative for the tenant to raise an objection in the written statement at the earliest to the effect that the necessary ingredients were not pleaded -- It is not necessary to plead all the ingredients in the ejectment application, but there must be evidence for proving the same – Eviction order upheld. Surinder Dhingra v. Bhim Sain Arora, 2011(3) L.A.R. 230 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide need – Pleadings -- Whether the tenant can raise the question of noncompliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13(3)(a) (i) of the Act even if he did not question it in his reply nor ask for any issue in this regard for the purpose of trial? – Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that mere nonpleading of a fact, which is enshrined in the statute, can always be rectified if a relevant objection is taken at the initial stage – Besides, as per Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, every allegation of fact, if not denied specifically, is taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability – Revision petition dismissed. Sat Parkash Chaudhary’s case, 2010(4) PLR 622 relied. Gurbaj Singh v. Parshotam Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 294 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i) – His own occupation – Non-residential premises – Need for son -- Requirement of non-residential premises by the landlord would also include the requirement of the said premises by his son. Ajit Singh and another’s case 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 528 and Joginder Pal’s case, 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 633, relied. Gurbaj Singh v. Parshotam Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 294 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) -- Bonafide need -- 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).
Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) – Bonafide need -- Franchise agreement is not lease -- Agreement to carry on the franchise business of ESPRIT of global lifestyle brand does not amount to lease -- It is a simpliciter franchise agreement -- One has to see intention of the parties -- No material to say that agreement is a lease -- Once possession remains with the landlords and the landlords are selling the items of Firm, then it cannot be said to be a lease -- To establish lease, possession has to be transferred in favour of the lessee. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) – Bonafide need -- 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).
Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) – Bonafide need -- 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).
Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) – Bonafide need to start business – 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).
Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) – Personal necessity -- No evidence brought on record by the tenants that the landlady had any other accommodation or has vacated similar building after the commencement of the Act in the same urban area -- Tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlady -- Need has been shown to be of widowed daughter and her grown up son and in the absence of her husband, the landlady has the only support of her widowed daughter and her grown up son – Eviction order on the ground of personal necessity upheld. M/s Banarsi Dass Varinder Kumar v. Smt.Pritam Kaur, 2011(3) L.A.R. 114 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a), 13(4) -- Bonafide need – 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).
Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a), 13(4) – Bonafide need -- In view of Section 13(4) of the Act, need alleged by the landlords must be presumed to be correct and genuine, unless of course, proved otherwise. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(i) – Arrears of rent – Assessment of provisional rent – Extension of time – Jurisdiction of Rent Controller -- Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time for the purpose of tendering provisionally assessed rent without there being any reason. Sanjeet Singh v. Mohali Motor Finance Co. and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 247 (P&H).
Section 13, 15(5), 17 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 -- Eviction of tenant – Revision – Execution of eviction order – Objections – In revision, tenant made a request that he may be allowed six months' time to vacate the demised premises, ultimately, the revision petition was dismissed only on the ground that six months had already expired -- In these circumstances, tenant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate – Held, all objections which could have been raised before the High Court by the tenant are deemed to have been waived off and cannot be re-agitated in the execution application. Sewa Singh v. Shri Mohinder Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 359 (P&H).
Section 13, 17 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 -- Eviction of tenant – Revision – Execution of eviction order – Objections – Rent Controller/Civil Court -- Whether the Rent Controller can execute the order of eviction as a decree which is executable only by a Civil Court in view of Section 17 of the Act – Held, Civil Judges are exercising the powers of the Rent Controllers, therefore, it is only a matter of nomenclature that when the rent petition is filed it is to be addressed to the Rent Controller and when execution is filed it is to be addressed to the Civil Court who is none-else then the Rent Controller -- Objections dismissed -- Direction issued to all the Rent Controllers in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory Chandigarh to mention in their orders that they are deciding the execution as Rent Controller-cum-Civil Court instead of hearing the objections as Rent Controller so that this kind of frivolous objection may not be raised in future leading to a litigation before this Court. Sewa Singh v. Shri Mohinder Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 359 (P&H).
Section 13-B -- NRI landlord – Bonafide need -- Attorney -- Eviction petition through Attorney -- Held, Attorney is the father-in-law of the landlord and thus, it cannot be said that he is not in the knowledge of the personal facts which are necessary for disposal of petition – Rent Controller held that petition filed through power of attorney is maintainable – Order upheld. M/s. Hind Sons Agency and Ors. v. Sh. Jai Parkash Jain, 2011(3) L.A.R. 274 (P&H).
Section 13-B, 18-A -- NRI landlord – Lease for 99 years – Ownership – Petition u/s 13-B maintainable – Leave to defend -- Tenant filed an application seeking 'leave to defend', which has been allowed by the Rent Controller only on the ground that the petitioner is not the owner and is rather a lessee having a lease of 99 years of the demised premises from the P.S.S.I.C -- “Whether a licensee of a property for a period of 99 years having a right to possession and transfer falls within the definition of owner for the purpose of a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act ? – “Whether or not the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises for the purpose of instituting a suit for eviction in terms of the Act ?” -- Question posed by the Landlord is to be answered in his favour -- Order of Rent Controller set aside – Since leave to defend is being declined, the matter is remanded back to the Rent Controller, to pass order of eviction in accordance with law. Swadesh Ranjan Sinha’s case 1991 (4) SCC 572 relied. Kanwaljit Singh v. Banarsi Dass, 2011(3) L.A.R. 175 (P&H).
Ejectment / Ejectment order / Ejectment petition
Pepsu Tenancy Act -- Arrears of rent – Section 7 must be read as providing to a tenant an additional period of what the Punjab Tenancy Act provides – It will be wrong to assume that a landlord could decide to exclude the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy Law by applying under the Punjab Tenancy Act – The application of Acts cannot be made to be dependent on the personal whims of a landlord. Joginder Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 676 (P&H).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Land owner was a displaced person, the land owner would be entitled to 50 standard acre or 100 ordinary acres -- If the land owner’s holding was in excess of the permissible area, the tenant could have had his own permissible area -- On the other hand, if the permissible area of the tenant was less than 50 standard acres, which fell within the permissible area of the landlord also, then the tenant could only treat himself to be a tenant, who was liable for ejectment under Section 9. Ram Devi (through LRs) and another v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 667 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Non-speaking order – Evacuee property -- Duty of Authorities -- A.C. Ist Grade did not decide the question of title and passed the non-speaking ejectment order -- Appellate Authority repeated the same mistake – Authorities ought to have discussed the evidence brought on record and were legally required to record the valid reasons, for arriving at a right conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy -- Whether the land in dispute was the evacuee property, vests in the custodian department or falls within the definition of shamilat deh, as defined under Section 2(G) of the Act, or that the land of the petitioners is exempted from the operation of law, in view of Section 4 of the Act, on account of their long possession for the last about 60 years etc., would be the moot points to be decided by the authorities under the Act -- Matter remanded back to the A.C. Ist Grade, for its fresh decision. Kanhi Ram and another v. Gram Panchayat Dhani Silawali and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 337 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Haryana) – Question of title raised – Effect of -- Petitioners have raised a legitimate question of title and prima facie proved it, by producing the sale certificate, copy of the site plan and other related documents -- Held, it was incumbent upon and the statutory/mandatory duty of the A.C. Ist Grade to first decide the question of title and without deciding the question of title at the first instance, he was not legally competent to pass the ejectment order. Kanhi Ram and another v. Gram Panchayat Dhani Silawali and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 337 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Haryana) – Question of title raised – Effect of -- Clear and explicit intention of the legislature underlying Section 7 has to be respected and complied with in the manner commanded by the Act -- Command of the legislature is mandatory and the procedure of deciding the question of title, at the first instance, is to avoid unscrupulous ejectments. Kanhi Ram and another v. Gram Panchayat Dhani Silawali and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 337 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Haryana) – Question of title raised – Effect of -- It was imperative and the statutory duty of the A.C. Ist Grade to first decide the question of title and without deciding it as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 7, he was not legally competent to order the ejectment in a routine fashion. Hazari and others v. The Gram Panchayat Khatoti Sultanpur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 344 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Haryana) – Question of title raised – Effect of -- For deciding the question of title as escalated u/s 7 of the Act, the A.C.Ist Grade did not afford adequate opportunity to the petitioners to lead their evidence -- Authorities below ought to have discussed the evidence brought on record and were legally required to record valid reasons for arriving at a right conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy -- Such statutory authorities, exercising the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as envisaged under Section 7 (3) of the Act, should act independently instead of functioning as a representative of the State/G.P – Every action of such authority must be informed by reasons, order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of fair play -- Matter is remitted back to the concerned A.C.Ist Grade, for its fresh decision, on the question of title after affording adequate opportunities to the parties to lead their respective evidence in accordance with law. Hazari and others v. The Gram Panchayat Khatoti Sultanpur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 344 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Haryana) – Second Revision – Maintainability of -- Second revision before the Financial Commissioner is not maintainable, in context of proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Act. Gram Panchayat Village Bajghera v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 329 (P&H).
Election of new Sarpanch
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- No-confidence motion -- Neither the removal of the Sarpanches was de-notified nor the elections of newly elected Sarpanches were notified, till the omission of Section 19 of the Act by the State Government – Held, earlier elected Sarpanches will be deemed to continue as Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats of their respective villages. Baljit Kaur wife of Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 325 (P&H).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Status of Sarpanch cannot legally be conferred, unless and until, the entire contemplated procedure under the Act and Rules, is completed, removal of elected Sarpanches is denotified and election of new Sarpanches are duly notified by the Government in the Official Gazette and not otherwise. Baljit Kaur wife of Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 325 (P&H).
Election petition
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 -- Deficiency in security deposit – Maintainability of appeal -- Appeal against the rejection of an election petition on account of non-compliance of provisions of Sections 76, 77 or 103 of the Act, the provisions of Rule 53 of the Rules cannot be given over riding effect as the Rules are always subservient to the parent Act and cannot override the same – Held, an appeal against the order of the Tribunal rejecting the election petition on account of non-compliance of provisions of Section 76, or Section 77 or Section 103 of the Act or Rule 52 of the Rules shall be maintainable under Section 100 of the Act. Smt. Bhajan Kaur and another v. Gurmej Kaur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 -- Deficiency in security deposit – Maintainability of appeal -- Rejection of plaint – Opportunity to deposit -- Procedure pertaining to trial of suits is provided in first schedule of the CPC -- Election petition can be equated with a plaint -- Held, as per the principles laid down in Order VII Rule 11 (c) CPC, in case the Tribunal finds that the security deposited by the election petitioner is deficient, before passing any order rejecting the election petition on that ground, opportunity should have been afforded to make the deficiency good and it is only on failure to comply with the direction, that the election petition be dismissed on that ground. Smt. Bhajan Kaur and another v. Gurmej Kaur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).
Eligibility of Individual
Allotment of flat by Society – Challenge to -- Date of Eligibility – Future acquisition – Effect of -- Petitioner submitted an affidavit on 8.6.1983 to the effect that he or his dependent family member did not own or possess any other residential allotment of a house in Chandigarh, Mohali or Panchkula -- Wife of the petitioner had been allotted a house at reserve price on 15.9.1983 – Held, eligibility of an individual to get a plot has nothing to do so far as future acquisitions are concerned -- Impugned orders cancelling allotment of a plot to the petitioners, quashed. Chandigarh Housing Board’s case 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 640, relied. Jai Bhagwan Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 42 (P&H DB).
Encroachment
Right of re-allottee – Possession of the plot was delivered to the original allottee free from all encumbrances -- HUDA cannot be blamed for the encroachment, if any, made after possession of the plot was delivered to the original allottee nor the re-allottee could possibly accuse the HUDA of deficiency in service in the matter of allotment of plot on the ground that some people had made encroachment on it -- Finding recorded by the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the HUDA’s part is erroneous – Order of District Forum for allotment of alternative plot to the re-allottee set aside. Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Viresh Sangwan & Another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 526 (SC).
Enhancement of land compensation
Allotment of tenement – Right of Housing Board to recover from allottee -- Housing Board constructed tenements on acquired land -- Allotment made at the price fixed -- Hire Purchase Tenancy agreement stipulated that Board could enhance the price of tenements on receipt of final Bill of construction or there was increase in compensation payable to land owners, however, Board’s power to revise the price of the tenements is hedged with the limitation of 7 years – Land cost increased on account of higher compensation to landowners – Held, Board is not entitled to revise price after 7 years of allotment. Ishwar Dass Nassa and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 545 (SC).
Evacuee property
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Ejectment order – Non-speaking order – Duty of Authorities -- A.C. Ist Grade did not decide the question of title and passed the non-speaking ejectment order -- Appellate Authority repeated the same mistake – Authorities ought to have discussed the evidence brought on record and were legally required to record the valid reasons, for arriving at a right conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy -- Whether the land in dispute was the evacuee property, vests in the custodian department or falls within the definition of shamilat deh, as defined under Section 2(G) of the Act, or that the land of the petitioners is exempted from the operation of law, in view of Section 4 of the Act, on account of their long possession for the last about 60 years etc., would be the moot points to be decided by the authorities under the Act -- Matter remanded back to the A.C. Ist Grade, for its fresh decision. Kanhi Ram and another v. Gram Panchayat Dhani Silawali and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 337 (P&H).
Eviction
Public Premises Laws -- Retirement from service – Lease terminated, the petitioner obviously would not have any right to continue or to occupy the premises – Order of eviction legally passed by the competent authority. Sat Pal Verma v. The Panchayat Samiti, Garhshankar & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 45 (P&H).
Eviction of tenant
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 -- 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 -- Unauthorized occupant – 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 Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953) -- Land-owner should be a small landowner to evict the tenant – There is no need to prove that he himself intends to cultivate -- If land-owner intends to cultivate the land under his supervision by his employees, it would amount to self cultivation -- Merely because small land-owner is not residing in the village and for his livelihood has started living in the city, does not loose the character of the small land-owner – Eviction order upheld. Surjan v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 86 (P&H).
Punjab Tenancy Act -- Recovery of Rent – Right of -- Contention that the petitioner has been evicted and the relationship of the tenant and the landlord had ceased, the authorities have, therefore, not the competency to entertain and dispose of the landlord's claim under the Punjab Tenancy Act – Held, so long as the jural relationship of landlord and tenant is an admitted fact and the claim to rent is for the period when such relationship is existed, the jurisdiction of the authority cannot be lost by the supervening event of the tenant being evicted by an order through the authority constituted under the Act. Nand Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 396 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Title dispute – Resjudicata – Plea of – Maintainability of -- Whether the order passed in proceeding u/s 7 of the Act will operate as res judicata or as an estoppel in proceeding u/s 11 of the Act, is not res-integra – Section 7 of the Act is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction and therefore, cannot enter into the enquiry as to whether the land is shamlat or not -- Question of title decided by the Assistant Collector is prima facie and does not assume finality – U/s 7 the Collector is empowered to pass an order to put Panchayat in possession of the land which vests and is deemed to have been vested in, such provision pre-supposes the title of the Panchayat over the said property -- Jurisdiction of the Collector u/s 7 of the Act is analogous to the execution proceedings -- Disputed question of title over any land claimed to be shamlat or otherwise, is required to be adjudicated upon u/s 11 of the Act -- While providing alternative mode of adjudication of question of title of the land as shamlat or not, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was specifically barred – Held, in proceedings u/s 11 of the Act, the question of title is adjudicated upon in substitution of the proceedings before the Civil Court and the order passed in such proceeding alone is final and binding on the parties. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 195 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Arrears of rent -- Tender of rent – Date fixed for tendering of rent by the tenants was fixed at Sunday -- Rent Controller took up the case on the next working day, but on that date, the counsel for the tenants did not ask for fixing a date for proper orders, rather prayed for extension of time on the ground that the tenants has not come forward for the purpose of tendering rent due to death of a close relative – Tenant did not lead any prima facie evidence in this regard, it is possible that on that date the tenants were not having arrangement of the rent to be paid as it is evident, dispossession of the tenants was stayed subject to their clearing the entire arrears of rent within 10 days from the said date, but despite that order, the tenants tendered the rent beyond the period of 10 days – Eviction order, upheld. Surinder Kumar and another v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011(3) L.A.R. 236 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Bonafide need – 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 Laws -- Residential building – Non-residential building – Demised premises is in the market where there is no zoning and there is no evidence that it is connected with the main residential building from any side and has been found to be continuously let out for non-residential purposes, therefore, the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant by treating it to be a non-residential building for non-residential purposes. S. Narinder Singh and another v. Manohar Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).
Wakf property -- Civil court – Jurisdiction of -- Act does not provide for any proceedings before the Tribunal for determination of a dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant in occupation of a wakf property or the rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessees of such property -- A suit seeking eviction of the tenants from wakf property could, therefore, be filed only before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2011(3) L.A.R. 141 (SC).
Eviction order
Execution of – Public Premises Laws -- Limitation for execution – Execution after 16 years – Collector dismissed the execution on the ground of limitation -- Commissioner allowed the execution application in appeal on the ground that no limitation for filing execution is provided – Order of Commissioner upheld. Ashwani Kumar’s case 2003(3) P.L.R. 235 relied. Sucha Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 111 (P&H).
Eviction of Unauthorised occupants / persons
Public Premises laws – 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).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Gair Mumkin Goradeh – Common purpose – 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).
Eviction petition
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Res-judicata -- In earlier petition, Gram Panchayat failed to produce any evidence for a sufficient long time, neither the Gram Panchayat nor any counsel appeared and the case was dismissed for non-prosecution – Held, no adjudication on the issue and findings of facts have not been returned – Earlier order would not operate as resjudicata -- It would not estop the Gram Panchayat from filing the second application -- Decision taken in earlier petition cannot be said to be conclusively deciding the issue. Balwinder & others v. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 60 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Additional evidence -- Additional evidence can be allowed even at the stage of argument i.e. till the Court becomes functuous officio, meaning thereby till the Court signs the judgment, the application can be entertained. Narinder Kumar v. Shri Sat Narayan Mandir through Trust Committee Hindu Panchayati Dharamshala and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 244 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Additional evidence -- Tenant want to produce sanctioned site plan, order of sanctioning the site plan, two statements of the parties in dispute and an order of the Civil Court – Tenant is trying to produce on record those documents which have not been manufactured by him and are coming from the custody of the authorities either judicial or quasi judicial – Dismissal of the application by Rent Controller is unsustainable. Narinder Kumar v. Shri Sat Narayan Mandir through Trust Committee Hindu Panchayati Dharamshala and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 244 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Amendment in written statement -- During the pendency of appeal, the tenant filed an application for seeking amendment in the written statement for adding the ground that the tenant was in possession of a Chaubara as well @ Rs.500/- per month and has paid its rent, but could not take this plea in the written statement – Held, such a plea at the stage of appeal cannot be permitted to be taken by the tenant which was already in the knowledge of tenant at the time when the written statement was filed by him before the learned Rent Controller. Avtar Singh v. Tara Rani, 2011(3) L.A.R. 258 (P&H).
Eviction petition through Attorney
Rent Laws -- Attorney is the father-in-law of the landlord and thus, it cannot be said that he is not in the knowledge of the personal facts which are necessary for disposal of petition – Rent Controller held that petition filed through power of attorney is maintainable – Order upheld. M/s. Hind Sons Agency and Ors. v. Sh. Jai Parkash Jain, 2011(3) L.A.R. 274 (P&H).
Exchange of land
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 -- Shamlat land -- Power of Director Consolidation – Director Consolidation Haryana allowed the exchange, de hors the powers vested in Director Consolidation u/s 42 of the Consolidation Act – Property falling in shamlat deh can only be exchanged if the provisions of 1961 Act and the Rules are complied with not only in letter but also in their spirit -- None of the conditions provided under Rule 5 of the Rules has been followed, rather, under a Statute which is alien to the issue, exchange of Gram Panchayat land has been allowed -- Held, exchange of land of Gram Panchayat allowed by Director Consolidation, is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and for reasons de hors the law that governs such issues -- Order is also fanciful, injudicious, irresponsible and unaccountable. Maherdin & others v. Smt. Medha & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 119 (P&H).
Execution of eviction order
Public Premises Laws -- Limitation for execution – Execution after 16 years – Collector dismissed the execution on the ground of limitation -- Commissioner allowed the execution application in appeal on the ground that no limitation for filing execution is provided – Order of Commissioner upheld. Ashwani Kumar’s case 2003(3) P.L.R. 235 relied. Sucha Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 111 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Objections – In revision, tenant made a request that he may be allowed six months' time to vacate the demised premises, ultimately, the revision petition was dismissed only on the ground that six months had already expired -- In these circumstances, tenant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate – Held, all objections which could have been raised before the High Court by the tenant are deemed to have been waived off and cannot be re-agitated in the execution application. Sewa Singh v. Shri Mohinder Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 359 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Rent Controller/Civil Court -- Whether the Rent Controller can execute the order of eviction as a decree which is executable only by a Civil Court – Held, Civil Judges are exercising the powers of the Rent Controllers, therefore, it is only a matter of nomenclature that when the rent petition is filed it is to be addressed to the Rent Controller and when execution is filed it is to be addressed to the Civil Court who is none-else then the Rent Controller -- Objections dismissed -- Direction issued to all the Rent Controllers in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory Chandigarh to mention in their orders that they are deciding the execution as Rent Controller-cum-Civil Court instead of hearing the objections as Rent Controller so that this kind of frivolous objection may not be raised in future leading to a litigation before this Court. Sewa Singh v. Shri Mohinder Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 359 (P&H).
Execution of Unprivileged Wills
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).
Obliteration/interlineation/alteration in Will -- 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).
Exoneration from charges
Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch -- Preliminary Enquiry -- Regular enquiry – Scope of -- It cannot possibly be saith that once the petitioner was exonerated on the basis of preliminary enquiry by the Appellate Authority, without impleading the complainant as a party, then the Enquiry Officer becomes functus officio and cannot proceed with the regular enquiry --– Enquiry Officer has rightly summoned the petitioner and he has power and jurisdiction to conduct the regular enquiry against her in this context. Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 392 (P&H).
Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch -- Preliminary Enquiry -- Regular enquiry – Scope of -- Taking cognizance of the report of the preliminary enquiry, the Director suspended the Sarpanch, as an interim measure – Sarpanch was reinstated by the Appellate Authority, without impleading the complainant as a party or providing opportunity of being heard to him, on a technical ground, but that ipso facto is not a ground to exonerate, on the basis of preliminary enquiry, unless she is found innocent during the course of regular enquiry in this relevant connection. Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 392 (P&H).
Extension of lease
Public Premises Laws -- Unauthorized occupant – 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).
Extension of time
Rent Laws -- Assessment of provisional rent – Jurisdiction of Rent Controller -- Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time for the purpose of tendering provisionally assessed rent without there being any reason. Sanjeet Singh v. Mohali Motor Finance Co. and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 247 (P&H).
No comments:
Post a Comment