Bonafide need
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- 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).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Need for son -- Pleadings – 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. Gurbaj Singh v. Parshotam Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 294 (P&H).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- 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).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction 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).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- 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. Gurbaj Singh v. Parshotam Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 294 (P&H).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 -- 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).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 -- 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).
Rent Laws -- 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 Laws -- Eviction petition through Attorney -- 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).
Rent Laws -- 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 Laws -- 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).
Rent Laws – Need for son -- Death of Landlord -- 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).
Building
Rent Laws -- 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).
Rent Laws -- 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).
Rent Laws -- 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).
Business
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 -- Tax on advertisement – Trade – Meaning of -- ‘trade’ or ‘business’ are words of wide import and it cannot be said that only if sales are exclusively carried on in particular good in a building, it can be described as the ‘trade’ or ‘business’ -- “business” is a very spacious expression and in fiscal statutes, it must be construed in a broad rather than restricted sense to include anything which occupies the time, attention and labour of a man for the purpose of profit -- Word “trade” also includes the exchange of goods for goods or goods for money and in a secondary meaning it is any business carried on with a view to profit -- Even a single transaction or event falling within these parameters shall constitute ‘business’ or ‘trade’, as the case may be. Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 69 (P&H DB).
No comments:
Post a Comment