Punjab Land Revenue Rules

Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Service to nation -- Respondent No.5 had served in Indian Army for the period of more than 15 years, he had participated in three wars in the years 1961, 1965 and 1971 and was awarded Shauraya Chakara for his bravery shown at the time of those wars -- Father of the respondent No.5, who was working as a Lambardar and at whose death vacancy had occurred, also served the nation by participating in the war of independence and the second world war -- Brother of the respondent No.5 also served the nation and retired as a Captain from the Indian Army -- Paternal uncle of respondent No.5 also served the Indian National Army -- In view of the service rendered for the nation by the family of respondent No.5, decoration given to him, by appointing him as a Lambardar of the village, is perfectly justified. Tarsem Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 396 (P&H DB).

Rule 16 – Appointment of Lambardar -- Comparative merits -- Respondent No.3 is 40 years of age, whereas the petitioner is 52 years of age -- Respondent No. 3 has 39 kanals 9 marlas of land and petitioner is having 25 kanals -- Respondent No.3 also has experience as Sarbrah Lambardar, being nephew of the deceased Lambardar -- Other criteria's are by and large comparable – District Collector has taken into account the relevant merit factors while directing appointment of respondent No.3 as Lambardar -- Order passed is perfectly justified -- So far as merits of both the candidates are concerned, in other segments, the respondent No. 3 has an edge. Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 399 (P&H DB).

Rule 16 – Appointment of Lambardar -- Unauthorised occupation – Ex-serviceman -- Allegation against the appellant that he was found in unauthorised occupation of the land, which was reserved for a passage during consolidation proceedings – Appellant with a view to remove that evidence, put up earth in the land measuring 1 ft. x 40 ft. -- Merely because the appellant was an Ex-Serviceman, the benefit of appointment cannot be given to him. Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 399 (P&H DB).

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887)

Section 13, 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Collector's choice, unless it is vitiated in law and on facts, is not to be interfered in the case of appointment of a Lambardar. Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 399 (P&H DB).

Section 13, 15 – Appointment of Lambardar -- Choice of Collector -- Collector is the best judge in the case of appointment to the post of a Lambardar, his decision can be interfered with only if it is perverse in law and on facts. Mohinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 416 (P&H DB).

Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961)

Section 13(1)(8) – Merger of Societies – Duties of Registrar -- Registrar, Cooperative Societies has to record his satisfaction that it is necessary in the interest of a Cooperative Society or Cooperative Societies – No such satisfaction has been recorded by the Registrar and it is nowhere stated in the order that it is necessary in the interest of the Cooperative Society or Cooperative Societies -- Application of mind should be apparent in the order and the reasons are to be stated as to why it is necessary in the interest of a Cooperative Society or Cooperative Societies -- Yet, not even a formal line has been mentioned in the order that it will be in the interest of Cooperative Societies – Held, order has been passed mechanically and in a stereotype manner – Order, set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab to pass a fresh order, after hearing the necessary parties. Balbir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 300 (P&H).

Possession as co-owner is deemed to be possession of all

If the defendant is in possession as co-owner, then, legally his possession as co-owner would be deemed to be the possession of all the co-sharers -- A co-owner has an interest in the whole property and also in every part of it -- Possession of property by one co-owner is in the eye of law, possession of all the joint owners even if one co-owner is in joint possession of the same -- Mere occupation of larger portion or even of entire joint property by one co-owner does not necessarily amount to ouster as possession of one co-sharer would be deemed to be on behalf of all the co-sharers -- Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the owner, who is out of possession of the joint property except in the event of complete ouster or abandonment. Lt. Col. Hargobind Singh (Retd.) v. Mr.Hargursharan Singh, 2011(2) L.A.R. 433 (P&H).

Onus of proof

Will – Suspicious circumstances – Where there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the will, the onus heavily lies on the propounder to explain the circumstances to the satisfaction of the court before the court accepts the will as genuine. Rajinder Kaur v. Manjit Kaur and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 440 (P&H).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)

Section 4, 6, 11, 48 – Acquisition of land – Release of land – Fraud – Notification u/s 4 and 6 for a public purpose for residential/commercial area -- Land released to respondent no. 3 in 1997 for a specific purpose of setting up a hospital project with a further condition that the land shall not be sold without the approval of the Government and shall be used only for the facilities proposed to be set up – Respondent-DLF entered into a MOU as early as on 21.2.2005, whereas the request for permission to sell the land was made on 31.3.2005/4.4.2005 – DLF-respondent applied for setting up a S.E.Z. on the land on 14.10.2005 and ‘in principle’ approval to set up the aforesaid SEZ was granted by the State even prior to the permission to sell – Permission to set up a SEZ upon the land in favour of respondents-DLF was granted on dated 28.10.2005 and on the other hand, permission to sell land in question was granted to respondent on 28.4.2006 and while granting permission, the State completely ignored the agreement executed by respondent No.3 – Held, aforesaid facts alone are enough to establish the nexus of M/s DLF Limited with the Government to grab the property in question – Subsequent facts of granting necessary approvals for setting up of a SEZ etc. was an attempt to cover the whole malafide action and everything was facilitated to give the same a legal cover – Impugned action of the State cannot be upheld – Notifications releasing the land in favour of respondent no. 3 are set aside and it is further held that permission of sale which was granted on 28.4.2006 in favour of respondent and execution of sale deeds in favour of DLF vide sale deeds were illegal – Since the whole transaction has been found to be the result of fraudulent exercise of power, all the actions are deemed to be vitiated in law – Accordingly, proceedings u/s 4 and 6 shall be revived and the respondent-Authorities shall complete the acquisition proceedings from that stage – Result would be that the respondent-State shall pass an award acquiring the land in dispute. Harkishan v. Union of India and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 371 (P&H DB).

Section 4,6 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Acquisition of land – Delay in challenge – Locus standi -- Power of compulsory acquisition has been used fraudulently, all objections concerning delay in challenging acquisition and locus standi are not sustainable as it is well settled that all actions taken fraudulently are vitiated in law. Harkishan v. Union of India and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 371 (P&H DB).

Section 4,6, 23, 28 – Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (4 of 1922), Section 36, 42, 59 – Acquisition of land by trust -- Applicability of Land Acquisition Act – Declaration u/s 42 of the 1922 Act after one year of notification u/s 36 – Contention that declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act can be issued within one year of the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore declaration u/s 42 of the 1922 Act could not have been issued -- Provisions of the Amendment Act, 1984 are not applicable to the Improvement Act, 1922 except amendments introduced relating to determination and payment of compensation viz Section 23 (2) and 28, as amended by the Amendment Act, 1984, would be applicable to the acquisitions under the State Acts and Section 23 (1A) where the Collector pronounced the Award after 30.04.1982 – Declaration u/s 42 is held to be in accordance with law. Satpal Dhiman son of Shri Jyoti Ram Dhiman v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 407 (P&H DB).

Section 4,6, 48 – Acquisition of land – Release of land -- Court cannot ignore the releases/wrongs which has become final and the persons have been benefited immensely on accounts of such wrongs by retaining those benefits illegally and this may have to be undone -- To prevent illegal benefit being retained, the Court may quash release or withdrawal from acquisition if the same is held to be vitiated by fraud -- The Court may require the State to recall such release and also to ascertain whether release was for any extraneous consideration and how wrongful gain or wrongful loss can be readjusted -- Released land may be restored to the State or sold in public auction -- State itself may recall its illegal actions -- It may not be possible to lay down any rigid rule as to how relief can be moulded by Court in an individual fact situation -- If order of release is to be cancelled, it may be necessary to hear the affected party by the Court or the authority passing the order. Harkishan v. Union of India and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 371 (P&H DB).

Section 4,6,10 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Acquisition of land -- Writ jurisdiction – Limitation -- Writ petition filed 16 years after the award was announced by the Collector, must fail -- It is trite law that delay and laches is one of the important factors which the High Court must bear in mind while exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution -- High Court must refuse to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction and grant relief to the writ petitioner. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 284 (SC).

Section 4,6,10 – Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 – Acquisition of land -- Writ jurisdiction – Limitation – In relation to the land acquisition proceedings, the Court should be loathe to encourage stale litigation as the same might hinder projects of public importance – Courts are expected to be very cautious and circumspect about exercising their discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution if there has been inordinate unexplained delay in questioning the validity of acquisition of land. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 284 (SC).

Section 48 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Release of land -- No merit in the contention that there is absolute power of the State or that exercise of discretion by the State cannot be interfered with in exercise of its power of judicial review -- Court can certainly see that the executive acts lawfully, bona fide and within the limits of its power -- If there is an abuse or misuse of power, jurisdiction of this Court can certainly be invoked -- Rule of law has to prevail as it the basic requirement of Article 14 that the State acts fairly, reasonably and in good faith. Harkishan v. Union of India and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 371 (P&H DB).

Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977)

Section 15 -- Oustees claim – Allotment of plot -- Decision to restrict allotment of a plot to an oustee in a sector in which his land was acquired, was given go-bye through a policy dated 28.8.1998 – Sometimes the land acquired was for the purpose other than residential, through this policy, a provision was made for allotment of a plot in the next residential sector, which may be floated by HUDA -- Action of HUDA to deny allotment on the ground that the plot is not available in the sector where land is acquired may not be justified in the policy and the reason behind issuing this policy -- This reasoning would equally apply to all the cases under consideration even before this policy came into being. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Section 15 -- Oustees claim – Allotment of plot -- Policies required of HUDA authority to invite the claim of the oustess separately before floating of sector -- HUDA was required to consider and allow such claims even prior to floating the scheme or at any rate allot these plots to oustees before working out availability of plots for floating the same for general public -- Applications for allotment of the plots were invited from the general public, there were no separate claims invited either through newspaper or press from the oustees – Held, it is clear violation of the policies by the HUDA as framed from time to time -- Government and its instrumentality can not ignore or fail to follow polices formulated and such policies would have binding effect on them -- Claim from the oustees was to be separately invited and could not have been clubbed or joined with the general category -- HUDA directed to allot the residential plot to the petitioner as per his entitlement. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Section 15 -- Oustees claim – Allotment of plot -- Land acquired in 1983 – Claim was filed on 21.8.2000 for allotment of plot under oustees quota alongwith 10% amount of the total price of the plot -- Claim was rejected on the ground that his claim could be considered only for allotment in a sector for which his land was acquired -- Another reason given is that he had delayed too long in making the present approach – Held, responsibility to invite claim of the oustees as per the policy started from 1987 was that of the HUDA -- Not only that respondents were under obligation to invite such applications before floating the sector for general public but it was to be done separately -- Further the respondents were also first required to satisfy the claim of the oustees before even floating the sector – Ground of denial is in violation of the policies -- Direction issued to the HUDA to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a plot under the Oustees quota in the sector in which his land was acquired, if no plot is available in the said sector, the claim shall be considered and satisfied in any of the sectors that may now be under consideration, but in the city of Gurgaon – HUDA can be asked to consider the claim in any of the sectors which may be floated in future. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Section 15 -- Oustees claim – Delay – Allotment of plot -- In the absence of claims having been invited in proper and appropriate form as per the policy the order rejecting claim may not be sustainable -- Delay cannot be considered fatal -- In such like cases, it will be appropriate to issue some general directions to HUDA to invite claim of all the oustees by issuing a general advertisement in this regard either through press/New-Paper or publication -- Form and sufficient time should be given to the oustees to submit their claim -- As per the schemes, claims of such oustees, who have either not applied or have applied or their claim are under consideration can be so considered, if the plots are still available in Sector for which their land was acquired and if any oustee cannot be adjusted in the sector, then his claim can also be considered for allotment of a plot in any of the adjoining sectors. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Section 15 – Allotment of plot -- Oustees claim – Co-owner – Right of -- Pleas that all the co-sharers would be only entitled to one plot in terms of a policy instruction issued in the year 1993 may be in violation of law laid down by the Full Bench in Jarnail Singh’s case, CWP No.2575 of 2009, decided on 1.10.2010 -- Notification for acquisition was issued on 20.8.1992 -- It would be legally appropriate to direct that each co-sharer is entitled to allotment of a plot individually and the right could not be restricted to allotment of one plot for all the co-sharers. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Section 15 – Allotment of plot -- Oustees claim – Consideration in general category – Effect of -- Petitioner is entitled to consider for allotment of a plot in reserved category of oustees -- Action of the respondents in treating him in the category of general for consideration for allotment is legally not sustainable and is not proper -- Oustees are a distinct class and cannot be clubbed with general policies of allotment of plot -- Direction issued to the HUDA to consider the claim of the petitioner in the reserved category of oustees. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Section 15 – Allotment of plot -- Oustees claim – Earnest money – Non-deposit of -- Policy instructions issued on 12.3.1993 -- Oustees claims were rejected on the ground that they had not deposited 10% of the earnest money as was required under the policy -- Estate Officer concerned is to invite the claims through press/News-Papers for allotment of plots under the oustees policy much before floating of Sector -- Then each of the applicant is required to send his application in the prescribed proforma along with the supporting documents and earnest money equivalent to 10% of the cost -- HUDA had not followed the policy to invite claims from oustees separately through press or news-papers -- Claim of the oustees was invited while floating the scheme for allotment of plots in the sector for all eligible persons -- Inviting claim of oustees along with general public is in violation of the policy – Right of the petitioner for consideration for allotment of plot in oustees quota, thus cannot be forfeited on the ground that he had not earlier made application along with cost of 10% -- Direction is issued to HUDA to consider the claims of the petitioners in the reserved category of oustees. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Section 15 – Allotment of plot -- Oustees claim – Delay in applying – Effect of -- Land was acquired on 27.08.1987 -- Petitioner ultimately has filed a claim on 26.5.2009 along with 10% cost of the plot as earnest money – Claim of the petitioner is being declined only on the ground that the acquisition was prior to 10.9.1987 and as such is not covered by the policy instructions issued on the said date – Policy instructions were issued on 27.3.2000 providing that the claim of all the oustees be considered irrespective of date of acquisition in case the plots are still available for allotment -- Even the oustees have prior right of allotment and after satisfying their claim only the plots would be allotted to other persons – Some plots are still available -- Accordingly, the case is made out for issuing direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners under the category of oustees in accordance with above noted scheme and plots be accordingly allotted to the petitioners as per their entitlement. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Section 15 – Allotment of plot -- Oustees claim – Policies for oustees claim -- Oustees are to be treated as a separate class and their claim can not be considered, alongwith the claim of general public -- Claims of oustees are to be invited by Estate Officer, HUDA before sector is floated -- Policy required of HUDA to invite claim of the oustees separately before floating any Sector -- In fact land losers have option to buy first before applications are invited from the general public -- Claim of allotment of a plot to general public would arise after satisfying the claim of the oustees who have first option to buy -- Once the claim of oustees is invited alongwith general public, the possibility of first satisfying the claim of the oustees would stand defeated -- That is why oustees have been held to be separate and distinct class -- It is because of this that HUDA is required to invite claims of oustees before floating of the Sector. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Section 15 – Allotment of plot -- Oustees claim – Policies for oustees claim – Earnest money – Deposit of -- Concept of -- Requirement of depositing 10% of the price would arise only if the claims are first invited as per the policies and it has to be through press or news paper -- Price, as per the policy instructions dated 12.3.1993, is to be deposited once the claim is finally accepted by the competent authority and when the sector scheme is floated – In order to set the position right and as one time measure, it is appropriate to direct HUDA to invite claims of all the oustees through an advertisement in the newspaper, giving them sufficient time to make applications -- Those who make applications pursuant to such an advertisement may be asked to deposit 10% of the price, if the plots are still available -- Their claims be considered in the light of the policies formulated by HUDA -- Plots be allotted to such applicants in the Sector for which their land was acquired, if such plots are available in the said Sector or in the adjoining Sector in the terms of the policy and if the plots are still available -- This aspect is made as a one time measure so as to satisfy the claims of those left over either because of ignorance or because of act of HUDA not following the policies in letter and spirit -- HUDA was to keep the claims in a live register which has not been done -- HUDA was to demand 10% price which it has failed to do -- Course as suggested is thus the only fair and appropriate method to set the wrong right. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Evidence by Power of attorney

Law summarized -- (a) An attorney holder who has signed the plaint and instituted the suit, but has no personal knowledge of the transaction can only give formal evidence about the validity of the power of attorney and the filing of the suit -- (b) If the attorney holder has done any act or handled any transactions, in pursuance of the power of attorney granted by the principal, he may be examined as a witness to prove those acts or transactions -- If the attorney holder alone has personal knowledge of such acts and transactions and not the principal, the attorney holder shall be examined, if those acts and transactions have to be proved -- (c) The attorney holder cannot depose or give evidence in place of his principal for the acts done by the principal or transactions or dealings of the principal, of which principal alone has personal knowledge -- (d) Where the principal at no point of time had personally handled or dealt with or participated in the transaction and has no personal knowledge of the transaction, and where the entire transaction has been handled by an attorney holder, necessarily the attorney holder alone can give evidence in regard to the transaction -- This frequently happens in case of principals carrying on business through authorized managers/attorney holders or persons residing abroad managing their affairs through their attorney holders -- (e) Where the entire transaction has been conducted through a particular attorney holder, the principal has to examine that attorney holder to prove the transaction, and not a different or subsequent attorney holder -- (f) Where different attorney holders had dealt with the matter at different stages of the transaction, if evidence has to be led as to what transpired at those different stages, all the attorney holders will have to be examined -- (g) Where the law requires or contemplated the plaintiff or other party to a proceeding, to establish or prove something with reference to his ‘state of mind’ or ‘conduct’, normally the person concerned alone has to give evidence and not an attorney holder -- A landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant, on the ground of his ‘bona fide’ need and a purchaser seeking specific performance who has to show his ‘readiness and willingness’ fall under this category -- There is however a recognized exception to this requirement -- Where all the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney (who may happen to be a close family member), it may be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney even with reference to bona fides or ‘readiness and willingness’ -- Examples of such attorney holders are a husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of his/her spouse, a son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old and infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of a son/daughter living abroad. Man Kaur (Dead) by Lrs v. Hartar Singh Sangha, 2011(2) L.A.R. 446 (SC).

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949)

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).

East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948)

Section 18 – Passage – Right of -- Appellants are in unauthorised occupation of the land reserved for a passage during the consolidation proceedings -- Contention that the appellants are also members of Jumla Mushtarka Maalkaan, who are entered as owners in Jamabandi of the land in dispute and as such they cannot be ejected from that land – Held, the consolidation authorities have the power to reserve land for common purposes in a village by imposing a pro rata cut upon the right holders -- As per provisions of Section 23-A, the land so reserved shall be under the ownership of the Jumla Mushtarka Maalkaan – Therefore, contention deserves to be rejected. Raghbir Singh and others v. Collector, Bhiwani and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 394 (P&H DB).

Section 18, 23-A – Public purpose – Unauthorised occupation -- Right of -- During consolidation proceedings, land in dispute was kept reserved for a public purpose i.e. ‘latrines’ -- Appellant amalgamated the said part of the land of the Gram Panchayat in his house -- Nothing on record to show that house of the appellant was in existence before the year 1950 -- Appellant is a law breaker – Contention that the appellant’s only house exist in the land in dispute as such, it was incumbent for the authorities below to declare him owner of the same is liable to be rejected. Gurmail Singh v. Director and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 405 (P&H DB).

Co-owner

Possession as co-owner is deemed to be possession of all -- If the defendant is in possession as co-owner, then, legally his possession as co-owner would be deemed to be the possession of all the co-sharers -- A co-owner has an interest in the whole property and also in every part of it -- Possession of property by one co-owner is in the eye of law, possession of all the joint owners even if one co-owner is in joint possession of the same -- Mere occupation of larger portion or even of entire joint property by one co-owner does not necessarily amount to ouster as possession of one co-sharer would be deemed to be on behalf of all the co-sharers -- Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the owner, who is out of possession of the joint property except in the event of complete ouster or abandonment. Lt. Col. Hargobind Singh (Retd.) v. Mr.Hargursharan Singh, 2011(2) L.A.R. 433 (P&H).

Constitution of India

Article 14 -- East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A – 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).

Article 14, 226 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 48 – Release of land -- No merit in the contention that there is absolute power of the State or that exercise of discretion by the State cannot be interfered with in exercise of its power of judicial review -- Court can certainly see that the executive acts lawfully, bona fide and within the limits of its power -- If there is an abuse or misuse of power, jurisdiction of this Court can certainly be invoked -- Rule of law has to prevail as it the basic requirement of Article 14 that the State acts fairly, reasonably and in good faith. Harkishan v. Union of India and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 371 (P&H DB).

Article 226 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,6,10 – Acquisition of land -- Writ jurisdiction – Limitation -- Writ petition filed 16 years after the award was announced by the Collector, must fail -- It is trite law that delay and laches is one of the important factors which the High Court must bear in mind while exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution -- High Court must refuse to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction and grant relief to the writ petitioner. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 284 (SC).

Article 226 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,6 – Acquisition of land – Delay in challenge – Locus standi -- Power of compulsory acquisition has been used fraudulently, all objections concerning delay in challenging acquisition and locus standi are not sustainable as it is well settled that all actions taken fraudulently are vitiated in law. Harkishan v. Union of India and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 371 (P&H DB).

Article 32, 226 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,6,10 – Acquisition of land -- Writ jurisdiction – Limitation – In relation to the land acquisition proceedings, the Court should be loathe to encourage stale litigation as the same might hinder projects of public importance – Courts are expected to be very cautious and circumspect about exercising their discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution if there has been inordinate unexplained delay in questioning the validity of acquisition of land. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 284 (SC).

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)

Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Whether family settlement requires registration or admissible (or otherwise) in evidence or whether it is forged document, would be the moot points to be finally decided by the trial Court on the basis of evidence brought on record by the parties in order to substantiate their respective stands -- Objections/issues raised by the defendant in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, can only be decided on the basis of evidence brought on record by the parties and not otherwise -- Plaint can only be rejected if it squarely falls within the ambit and four corners of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and not otherwise – Trail court rejected application – Revision against trial court order dismissed. Lt. Col. Hargobind Singh (Retd.) v. Mr.Hargursharan Singh, 2011(2) L.A.R. 433 (P&H).

Order 7, Rule 11 (c) – Deficit Court fees -- Whenever the plaint is not properly stamped, the Court shall give one opportunity to the plaintiff to supply the requisite stamp paper and the plaint can be rejected only if the plaintiff fails to do so. Jarnail Singh v. Sanjiv Kumar, 2011(2) L.A.R. 424 (P&H).

Order 7, Rule 11 (c) – Deficit Court fees -- Plaintiff moved application with the plaint for seeking time to pay the court fee and the trial court passed order requiring the plaintiff to make good the court fee on the next date fixed and the plaintiff accordingly complied with the order and paid the court fee -- Consequently Order 7 Rule 11 (c) CPC was duly complied with and therefore, there was no occasion for rejecting the plaint or for dismissing the suit as time barred. Jarnail Singh v. Sanjiv Kumar, 2011(2) L.A.R. 424 (P&H).

Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Show cause notice -- A show cause notice is not necessarily an inviolable principle; It is unnecessary when the party knows that he has not obtained a vested right in the subject matter. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- If there had been an outright sale of the property and the person, who conducts the auction was himself competent to conclude the contract and a contract had been concluded/confirmed, a decision to annul the contract could not be made without giving a notice to the person to explain the same and to take a decision of the basis on such objections. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- Where an auction is subject to a confirmation by another authority, a person that bids at the auction ought to know that by the mere fact that he has made the highest bid does not conclude the contract and if a decision is taken by yet another officer not to confirm the sale, such a decision need not be put to the party before a decision is taken -- It is not the same thing as to state that a sanctioning authority may take an arbitrary decision -- Validity of such a decision will still be a subject to judicial review. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- If, the auction had been set aside attributing any practice of fraud or collusion against any of the petitioners, they would be justified in stating that decision without putting them on notice of such decision was illegal -- Auction is being set aside on existence of some supervening events that had a bearing on the unjustness of the result of the auction in which the petitioners had themselves no part -- Loss of property is itself not the prejudice -- Prejudice shall be to show how the notice would have made a difference. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Show cause notice -- Detailed procedure to show cause notice before a resumption was made, it is in the context of how a person, who obtains an allotment and who comes upon the property, is made to vacate the property and such a decision, which will have an immediate effect on a right to hold on to possession, could not be made without a transparent process that involves the affected party to show cause as to why the extreme action shall not be taken. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Higher bid in a week -- If there was an offer within a week by yet another person for a price above what was offered in this case for the property, it only showed that it would have been prudent to keep back the property from sale without offering it for public when the market forces were pulling the prices down. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of – Auction purchasers have not invested any big sums -- Their deposits were in terms of a few lakhs and they have not had the benefit of possession all the years -- If the sales were allowed to stand, the private individuals would come to enormous benefit that would benefit only them -- If, on the other hand, the sales were to be set aside, it would make possible for realisation of over Rs.50 crores for the property by Administration – Setting aside of auction upheld, auction purchaser would be entitled to refund of their moneys with interest @24% per annum. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of -- Sales had not been approved and sale deeds had not been executed in the manner contemplated in the Rules -- Consideration for the property had not been paid in full – Auction purchaser had not taken possession and the property had not been put to use by the petitioners -- It is not a case where the auction purchasers had to close down business by the action of the Administration – Auction purchaser could no more than complain of loss of hypothetical profits, if the property had been sold, if the property had been delivered possession, if the property had been put to use for the business, if profits had accrued and a host of imponderables – Auction sale shall be cancelled. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20 – Public auction – Sale of property -- If it was merely a transaction between private individuals, a mere increase in price may not be a ground to refuse a specific enforcement -- Governing principles between a private individual and a State authority cannot be the same; a fortiorari, the remedy under the private law and public law cannot also be the same -- In State actions, public interest is the most predominant principle. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – 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 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Show cause notice -- A show cause notice is not necessarily an inviolable principle; It is unnecessary when the party knows that he has not obtained a vested right in the subject matter. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- If there had been an outright sale of the property and the person, who conducts the auction was himself competent to conclude the contract and a contract had been concluded/confirmed, a decision to annul the contract could not be made without giving a notice to the person to explain the same and to take a decision of the basis on such objections. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- Where an auction is subject to a confirmation by another authority, a person that bids at the auction ought to know that by the mere fact that he has made the highest bid does not conclude the contract and if a decision is taken by yet another officer not to confirm the sale, such a decision need not be put to the party before a decision is taken -- It is not the same thing as to state that a sanctioning authority may take an arbitrary decision -- Validity of such a decision will still be a subject to judicial review. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- If, the auction had been set aside attributing any practice of fraud or collusion against any of the petitioners, they would be justified in stating that decision without putting them on notice of such decision was illegal -- Auction is being set aside on existence of some supervening events that had a bearing on the unjustness of the result of the auction in which the petitioners had themselves no part -- Loss of property is itself not the prejudice -- Prejudice shall be to show how the notice would have made a difference. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Show cause notice -- Detailed procedure to show cause notice before a resumption was made, it is in the context of how a person, who obtains an allotment and who comes upon the property, is made to vacate the property and such a decision, which will have an immediate effect on a right to hold on to possession, could not be made without a transparent process that involves the affected party to show cause as to why the extreme action shall not be taken. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Public auction – Higher bid in a week -- If there was an offer within a week by yet another person for a price above what was offered in this case for the property, it only showed that it would have been prudent to keep back the property from sale without offering it for public when the market forces were pulling the prices down. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Public auction – Setting aside of – Auction purchasers have not invested any big sums -- Their deposits were in terms of a few lakhs and they have not had the benefit of possession all the years -- If the sales were allowed to stand, the private individuals would come to enormous benefit that would benefit only them -- If, on the other hand, the sales were to be set aside, it would make possible for realisation of over Rs.50 crores for the property by Administration – Setting aside of auction upheld, auction purchaser would be entitled to refund of their moneys with interest @24% per annum. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Public auction – Setting aside of -- Sales had not been approved and sale deeds had not been executed in the manner contemplated in the Rules -- Consideration for the property had not been paid in full – Auction purchaser had not taken possession and the property had not been put to use by the petitioners -- It is not a case where the auction purchasers had to close down business by the action of the Administration – Auction purchaser could no more than complain of loss of hypothetical profits, if the property had been sold, if the property had been delivered possession, if the property had been put to use for the business, if profits had accrued and a host of imponderables – Auction sale shall be cancelled. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949)

Section 2(hh), 13-A – Subsequent purchaser – Landlord-tenant relationship – Continuance of -- Eviction petition u/s 13-A of the Act – Maintainability of -- Contention that if a tenant is not inducted by the person falling the petition or it is not proved that he had ever received rent from him, then there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and a petition u/s 13-A of the Act is not maintainable -- Held, where a person steps into the shoes of the earlier owner by virtue of transfer of the demised premises by a registered sale deed, he would certainly derive titled from him in terms of Section 2 (c) of the Act and would also step into his shoes for the purpose of maintaining an application under Section 13-A of the Act -- Thus, the contention is rejected. Chander Bhushan Anand v. Devender Kumar Singla, 2011(1) L.A.R. 517 (P&H).

Section 2(hh), 13-A, 18-A – Specified landlord – Retired employee – Right of – Object of the Act -- Act provides a right to a specified landlord to recover immediate possession of a residential or scheduled building by filing an application under Section 13-A of the Act, which could be contested by the tenant only by means of an application under Section 18-A of the Act -- Object is very loud and clear that retiree employee should get the accommodation immediately after his retirement. Chander Bhushan Anand v. Devender Kumar Singla, 2011(1) L.A.R. 517 (P&H).

Section 13 – Bonafide need – Witness through co-landlord/husband – Whether in absence of the landlady from the witness box, who has also projected her bona fide necessity in the pleadings, the ejectment application on the ground of her bona fide necessity could not have been allowed if her co-landlord, i.e. her husband, has been examined”? – Held, even an attorney in the case of husband and wife can depose on behalf of the other – In case of non-appearance of landlady, her husband who had knowledge of the facts can depose in the Court and the non-appearance of his wife cannot be faulted with – Eviction order upheld. M/s Metro Tyres Limited v. Sushil Kumar and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 626 (P&H).

Section 13 – Death of tenant – Non-impleading of L.R’s – All the legal heirs are not required to be brought before the Court if interest of all is fully watched by one of them – Since one of the L.R. was looking after the interest of other heirs of tenant and there is not even prima facie evidence on record of strained relations amongst the brothers or other sons of tenant -- Proceedings having been thoroughly carried out by one of legal heir would be deemed to have been carried out on behalf of the other as well. Gurdev Kaur’s case, 2009(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 550 relied. Satish Kumar and others v. Mohan Lal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 609 (P&H).

Section 13 – Eviction petition – Zimni orders – Recording of -- Zimni orders have been recorded by the learned Rent Controller in a casual manner, it is not clear on whose request the case was adjourned by the Court -- Courts below are not sensitive towards the recording of zimni orders which has a great sanctity in the judicial proceedings -- From the zimni orders, it can be ascertained as to what has transpired before the Court on a particular date -- Litigation is increasing day by day and the higher Courts are being unnecessarily burdened only because of the petty errors committed by the subordinate Courts -- All the subordinate Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh are directed to record correct zimni orders -- Correct recording of the zimni orders lends transparency in the judicial process and are very material. Ram Pal v. Deepak Sharma, 2011(1) L.A.R. 614 (P&H).

Section 13(2(1) – Arrears of rent – Provisional Rent – Assessment of – Non-tender of rent -- Noting of wrong date – Effect of – Contention that rent could not be tendered because inadvertently the date of hearing was wrongly noted as 20.10.2010 instead of 12.10.2010, due to which neither the tenants nor their counsel could appear before the learned Rent Controller – Held, no application was moved by the tenants before the learned Rent Controller on 20.10.2010 for the purpose of tendering the arrears of rent -- No occasion to grant them any opportunity for the purpose of tendering the rent – Tenants liable to be evicted. Madan Lal and another v. Tek Chand Sharma, 2011(1) L.A.R. 554 (P&H).

Section 13(2(1) – Arrears of rent – Provisional Rent – Assessment of – Non-tender of rent -- If the tenant fails to pay the provisionally assessed rent on the date fixed by the learned Rent Controller, then he makes himself liable to be evicted. Rakesh Wadhawan’s case 2002(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514 and Rajan alias Raj Kumar’s case 2010(2) PLR 201 relied. Madan Lal and another v. Tek Chand Sharma, 2011(1) L.A.R. 554 (P&H).

Section 13(2)(1) – Arrears of rent – Assessment by Rent Controller – Extension of time – Held, Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the time to make deposit of the amount as assessed by the Rent Controller beyond the period already fixed by the Rent Controller while assessing the rent -- Tenant is bound to make payment, there is no question for extension of time. Sudhir Kumar v. Kuldip Singh Malhotra, 2011(1) L.A.R. 96 (P&H).

Section 13(2)(ii)(a) – Arrears of Rent – Provisional Assessment of – Non-payment of – Extension of time -- Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to order extension of time of payment of provisional rent by the tenant. Mrs. Birinder Khullar v. Maninder Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 496 (P&H).

Section 13(2)(ii)(a) – Arrears of Rent – Provisional Assessment of – – Re-assessment of --  Extension of time -- Whether the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to further extend time to tender rent in case of disagreement with the tenant on his application regarding re-assessment -- Held, even if it is assumed that the application for re-assessment was a review application, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to grant further time to the tenant for tendering the provisional rent when he did not agree with him on his application for review -- In that circumstance, he was left with no other alternative but to simply dismiss the application. Mrs. Birinder Khullar v. Maninder Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 496 (P&H).

Section 13(2)(ii)(a) – Sub-letting -- Landlord could not prove tenant has no control over the business being carried out in the shop in dispute -- To prove the sub tenancy, landlord is bound to prove that tenant has ceased to occupy the shop and entire shop and business therein is under the control of sub tenant. Paramjit Kaur v. Gurmeet Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 189 (P&H).

Section 13(2)(ii)(a) – Sub-letting -- Landlord could not prove that there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between the tenant and alleged sub tenant – Courts below have drawn inference of sub-letting only on the ground that at the time of spot inspection, alleged sub-tenant, brother of the deceased husband of the tenant was found doing business -- Inference drawn by both the Courts below is not legal -- Sub-tenancy is not proved. Paramjit Kaur v. Gurmeet Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 189 (P&H).

Section 13(2)(ii)(a) – Sub-letting -- Once tenant has taken a plea that alleged sub-tenant is the brother of the deceased husband of the tenant and he helps her in her business and she has not sub-letted the shop – Sub tenancy cannot be lightly inferred. Paramjit Kaur v. Gurmeet Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 189 (P&H).

Section 13(2)(ii)(a) – Sub-letting – Onus of proof -- A commission cannot be issued to collect the evidence -- Hence, report of the commissioner advocate on the point that alleged sub-lessee was found in exclusive possession should have not been believed particularly in view of the fact that tenant is alleging that advocate commissioner is close friend of practicing advocate son of the landlord. Mohinder Pal v. Jang Bahadur and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 434 (P&H).

Section 13(2)(ii)(a) – Sub-letting – Onus of proof -- In the absence of the any agreement between the tenant and alleged sub-lessee and in the absence of any material to prove that alleged sub lessee has ever paid any consideration to the tenant, it would not be safe to hold that tenant has sublet the demised premises. Mohinder Pal v. Jang Bahadur and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 434 (P&H).

Section 13(2)(ii)(a), 15(5) – Sub-letting – Onus of proof -- Revisional Jurisdiction -- While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, High Court has every jurisdiction to upset the finding of fact recorded by Courts below if it is found that ingredients of sub-letting are missing -- To prove the sub tenancy, it has to be proved by the landlord that there was relationship of lessee and lessor between the tenant and sub-tenant and sub-tenant is paying any consideration to the tenant. Resham Singh’s case 1999(3) P.L.R. 527 (SC) relied. Mohinder Pal v. Jang Bahadur and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 434 (P&H).

Section 13(2)(ii)(a), 15(5) – Sub-tenancy -- Revisional Powers -- Question of sub tenancy is a question of law also -- While exercising revisional powers Court has to satisfy as to whether ingredients of sub tenancy are proved or not -- If the High Court finds that ingredients are not proved then it would be open for the Court to disturb judgments/findings of both the Courts below on the question of sub tenancy. Paramjit Kaur v. Gurmeet Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 189 (P&H).

Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Bonafide need -- Husband of the Landlady is a hawker engaged in selling of bangles --  Demised premises is a shop having dimension of 7' x 10' which prima facie suggests that the same is sufficient for the husband of the Landlady to carry on his activities -- Tenant cannot dictate a landlord as to whether his wishes are bona fide or not in the eventuality of his requiring the tenanted premises – Tenant can also not question as if the demised premises are adequate or not to carry out the desired venture by the landlord – Tenant is directed to be ejected. Kamaldeep Kaur v. Bharat Bushan alias Bharti, 2011(1) L.A.R. 133 (P&H).

Section 13(3)(a)(i) – Question of title – Jurisdiction of Rent Appellate Authority -- Appellate Authority had no authority to go into the question of title, more-so when it was not possessed of sufficient evidence so as to warrant such a conclusion -- It is dangerous to return a finding on the basis of mere assumption sans evidence -- Appellate Authority being clearly precluded to ponder over the question of title. Kamaldeep Kaur v. Bharat Bushan alias Bharti, 2011(1) L.A.R. 133 (P&H).

Section 13(3)(ii)(a) – Arrears of rent -- Assessment of provisional rent -- Cheque was tendered, when it was presented by the landlord for the purpose of realization, it was dishonored by the Bank – Plea that there is an error on the part of Rent Controller in not assessing the exact amount, which is to be paid on the first date of hearing, can not be raised in this case -- Held such type of a tenant should not be shown any leniency or given extension of time rather such type of cases should be dealt with firmly -- Once there is a default on the part of the tenant of not depositing the provisional rent on due date as determined by the Rent Controller then the tenant is liable to vacate the demised premises and time cannot be extended in any case. Gurvinder Singh v. Vinayak Bahl, 2011(1) L.A.R. 668 (P&H).

Section 13, 13-A, 15, 18-A(4)(5)(6) – Petition u/s 13-A of the Act – Right to Appeal -- Even though the petitioner was issued summons in accordance with the provisions of Section 13-A and the Schedule II of the Act and leave to defend was granted by the Rent Controller, yet, the trial of the case proceeded as if it was a petition u/s 13 – Appeal filed by the landlord was maintainable as the procedure of trial of a petition u/s 13 of the Act was adopted by the Rent Controller. Dr. Madan Lal v. Rattan Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 115 (P&H).

Section 13, 13-A, 18-A(4)(5)(6) – Retired employee -- Commercial building – Bonafide need – Eviction of tenant -- Petition was filed u/s 13-A, yet, the trial of the case proceeded as if it was a petition u/s 13 – Contention that the petition having been styled u/s 13-A could have only been answered qua the premises which were residential in nature – Now there is no distinction between residential and commercial premises in so far as the bona fide need of a landlord is concerned -- If the respondent wanted to get the demised premises vacated and that too in the evening of his life, it can hardly be said that need was not bona fide. Harbilas Rai Bansal’s case 1995(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 672 (S.C.) and Ashok Kumar’s case 2010(1) R.C.R. 63 (S.C.) relied. Dr. Madan Lal v. Rattan Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 115 (P&H).

Section 13, 13-B – NRI Landlord – Pendency of eviction petition u/s 13 – Eviction petition u/s 13-B – Maintainability of -- Rights granted to the N.R.I. landlord under Section 13-B of the Act are special rights to get vacant possession at the earliest -- These special rights are independent to any other right given under Section 13 of the Act -- Hence, rights given under Section 13-B of the Act cannot be curtailed merely because, landlord has filed previous petition under Section 13 of the Act. N.R.I. landlord can exercise his right under Section 13-B of the Act even during the pendency of earlier petition under Section 13 of the Act. Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal v. Harcharan Singh and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).

Section 13-A, 18-A(4)(5)(6) – Specified landlord – Retired employee – Leave to contest – Object of provision -- Section 13-A enshrines a special provision for a retired landlord to get the rented residential or scheduled building vacated from tenant – Tenant is required to obtain leave to contest within a period of fifteen days of service of summons -- If the leave is declined, then the Rent Controller is to decide the eviction application summarily, but on the other hand, if the leave is granted, then he shall commence the hearing on a date not later than one month from the date on which such leave was granted and shall hear the application from day-to-day till the hearing is concluded and the application is decided – Held, mandate of sub-sections (4) to (6) is unambiguous in this regard -- Ostensible purpose of having such a procedure is to obviate and mitigate the sufferings of a landlord, who retires from service and has no residential premises and is desirous of retrieving the same from his tenant. Dr. Madan Lal v. Rattan Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 115 (P&H).

Section 13-B – NRI Landlord – Bonafide need – Presumption of -- Onus of proof -- Court shall presume that the landlord’s need as pleaded in the petition, is genuine and bona fide -- However, the tenant would be entitled to prove that in fact, in law, the requirement of the landlord is not genuine -- A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal v. Harcharan Singh and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).

Section 13-B – NRI Landlord – Building – Number of shops in building – Right of landlord – Contention that recourse could had to the provisions of Section 13-B only once which would support the theory that each shop room or other premises in the building would have to be treated as a separate unit and the landlord would be entitled to make a choice as to which of the units he wished to take possession of immediately, since the landlord had already obtained possession of a portion of the building, it must be deemed that he had exhausted his option as given under Section 13-B and in order to evict the other tenants from the premises in question, he would have to file regular eviction petitions before the Rent Controller concerned, who would have to deal with the same in the regular manner without resorting to the emergency provisions of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act – Contention repelled, the interpretation sought to be given to the proviso to Section 13-B(1) of the 1949 Act would lead to an absurd situation which was not contemplated by the legislature while introducing the provisions of Section 13-B by way of amendment in 2001 -- The very object of the amendment would be frustrated if the narrow and constricted meaning being canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is to be accepted. Baldev Singh Bajwa’s case, JT 2005 (12) SC 442 relied. Swami Nath v. Nirmal Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 425 (SC).

Section 13-B – NRI landlord -- Rent Controller is expected to pass a reasoned order after taking into account all the submissions made by both the sides – Document submitted by the tenant has not been considered at all by the Rent Controller -- Revision petition allowed and the matter remanded back to the learned Rent Controller to decide it afresh by taking into account the evidence led by both the parties. Anil Kumar Sharma v. Barjinder Singh Mann, 2011(1) L.A.R. 620 (P&H).

Section 13-B, 18-A -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – NRI landlord – Leave to defend -- Amendment in pleadings -- Tenant has not averred in the application for amendment as to when he came to know about the fact which he wanted to incorporate in his application under Section 18-A of the Act -- In the absence of the material particulars about the time when the petitioner allegedly came to know about the alleged subsequent event -- Amendment is wholly frivolous and has been rightly declined by the Rent Controller. Anil Kumar Sharma v. Barjinder Singh Mann, 2011(1) L.A.R. 620 (P&H).

Section 13-B, 18-A – Leave to defend -- Leave to defend rejected -- However, from such rejection it does not follow that the landlord has not to prove the ingredients of Section 13-B of the Act – Tenant would have right to cross-examine the landlord in pending proceedings. Kamal Raj Bansal v. Rajpaul Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 77 (SC).

Section 13-B, 18-A – NRI landlord – Leave to defend – onus of proof -- Landlord had denied the documents and once it is denied, it is for the tenant to prove his case and he cannot force him to admit the case set up by him. Anil Kumar Sharma v. Barjinder Singh Mann, 2011(1) L.A.R. 620 (P&H).

Section 13-B, 18-A – Specified landlord -- NRI Landlord -- Summons to tenant – Service of -- Summons has to be issued in terms of Order 5 of CPC and in addition thereto, by registered post and by affixing another copy of the summons on the conspicuous part of the building in dispute – Rent Controller has to follow all the three methods -- No such procedure, as directed under Section 18-A (3) (a) and (b) has been followed by the learned Rent Controller, who has simply relied upon the report of refusal without recording anything as to service upon the tenant by way of registered post or by way of affixation by Process Server in case of refusal, nor given any chance to verify the question of refusal on the part of the tenant -- Held, finding of the learned Rent Controller in this regard is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained to hold that service upon the tenant was validly effected. Harwinder Pal Kaur and another v. Kuldeep Singh Gurm @ Kuldeep Singh and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 401 (P&H).

Section 13-B, 18-A(2), Schedule II – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- NRI landlord – Leave to defend – Limitation – Condonation of delay – Tenant is required to appear before the Controller and apply for leave to contest the same within 15 days of service of the summons -- Rent Controller being a creature of statute can only act in terms of the powers vested in him by statute and cannot, therefore, entertain an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay since the statute does not vest him with such power. Om Prakash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi, 2011(1) L.A.R. 109 (SC).

Doctrine of Estoppels

Doctrine of Estoppels

Petitioner raised a considered and conscious plea that he is a tenant of the Gram Panchayat on payment of 15% per annum as 'Chakota' (rent) -- Petitioner, obtained an injunction, on the basis of this plea of tenancy -- Petitioner is barred by the doctrine of estoppels from raising of plea of ownership. Harnek Singh v. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 407 (P&H).