No OF [20th December, ]. An Act to extend the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, , to the Union territory of Chandigarh. Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (for short ‘ Act’) and the said petition was pending adjudication before the Rent East Punjab Urban Rent. Court holding that Section 13(1) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, did not affect the jurisdiction East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.
|Published (Last):||7 August 2004|
|PDF File Size:||10.78 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.56 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Before us the constitutiona Amendment of Section 13 of It is not disputed that the Controller did not pass It is a case of clear non-compliance with the provisions of law as interpreted by this Court in the case of The respondents moved the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, under Articles and of the Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
In the High Court three points were raised. One of the points ur This Court first considered the question: Did the tenancy created The Court answered the question in the following words East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Actis not available to the respondent because on the date when the sub-letting East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is alleged to have been committed in the year and, therefore, the complaint ought to have been filed within six months of the commission of the offence On these allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment of the defendant from the premises in dispute From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the Control of Rent and Eviction Actcame into operation, the rights were governed by the provisions of the The sub-section reads thus: We have heard counsel on both sides in this short rent control case.
The ground on which eviction was sought was in terms of Section 13 3 a i of the In support of his contention he placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.
Therefore, the abovesaid case is distinguishable.
section 13 east punjab urban rent restriction act
Faced with that difficulty, Mr. Maluk Singh has requested that he may be allowed to amend the He has now come up in revision to this Court. The only contention of the learned Therefore, an application was filed Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the reason given in the application seeking transfer of the rent petition is erroenous. This Court has considered Court had directed that in cases where NRIs had filed petitions for eviction after coming into force the Punjab Rent Actfor short the Actthey would be permitted I have heard the learned Counsel Authority stated that he will dispose of the two applications i.
The grounds urged by the landlord were a non-payment of rent by The proceedings relate to a residential house Section 2 hh of the Actthe respondent moved a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner under Section A of the Act before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh.
The said petition was dismissed by the Rent Court set aside the order of the Rent Controller and accepted the petition filed by the respondent under Section A of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner.
The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Extension To Chandigarh ) Act, 1974
The High Court further directed as The Rent Controller after hearing the parties foun The appellate authority reversed the order of the Rent Controller by hold Further Section 13 of the Act states as It is true that the petition arises out of proceedings under Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and plead Further challenge is to the Acthad been filed by punjxb landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant petitioner herein East Punjab urban Rent Rfnt Act puniab, exempting certain buildings, urbxn the purview of the said Actin re Learned Rent controller allowed the petition as the petitioner had failed to deposit the arrears of rent as determined by it Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, hereinafter referred to as destriction Actwithout sufficient cause.
This specific averment in the petition was not specifically denied in the In application for ejectment, the landlord averred that he did not vacate the premises after the commencement of the East East India Trading Co. AIR SC In the present case, a The Supreme Court held, on a consideration of the releva We are of the view the Kaushal 4 scc In that case lan The Administrator of Chandigarh in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Chandigarh was declared to be an urban area in Section 13 2 i of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Actcasts an obligation on the controller to make an assessm In so far as the fir In this petition, th He filed a written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
In this situation, the learned Rent Controller came to Sections 17 to 23 deal with orders as to costs, execution, power to transfer proceedings, penalties etc. When the period of five years expired during the pendency of the suit, the t In other words, the argument is that it has not been averred in the petition that he is not in possession of any other The parties, through their counsel have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on November 6, Whether the suit is not competent in view of the eazt of the East Adt Urban Rent Restriction Actas Corporation, 1 RCR Rentthis case is liable to be remanded to the Rent Controller, for provisional assessment of rent to be made.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that The Court for interpreting the provisions of the Act noticed the am Delhi Act vis-a-vis East Punjab Rent Restriction Act would clearly go to show that the Parliament has thought it fit to treat the residential premises as a separate class for the purpose of Rent Restriction Actwere initiated. During the pendency of those proceedings Therefore, the statutory tenancy was heritab T Chandigarh because the proceeding The Rent Controller has assessed the provisional rate of rent It has been found that rent at the rate of Rs.
As per the case set up by the landlord, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises in the month of May, at a monthly rent of Rs. Ram Piari filed an applicatio Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of ezst ejectment of the petitioner from land measuring f Whether the respondent is a permanent lessee as alle Punjsb have also pointed out that they cannot be ejected East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Actpassing an order of ejectment on account of non-payment of arrears of Mohan Lal is competent to seek ejectment under section 2 b of the Actas the landlord includes owner or such other person who is entitled to receive rent Since the landlord-respondent had to plead the ingredients of Sub-clause b and c of Therefore, it is proper that the landlord should be allowed to amend his Chandigarh which was allegedly let out at Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Oral Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction The respondent filed reply, in which he denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties on the pretext that he has been paying rent to Prem Sagar Kapoor Rs.
It was contended that the petitioners cannot take benefit Initially, one Vedwati was the owner of the premises, who has inducted the present petitioners as tenants at a monthly rent of Rs.
Vedwati sold the property in dispute to Bhimsen, the present respondent. Bhim Sam, who sought eviction of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are in arrears of rent including house tax It is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner has sublet the premises to one Phambi Ram without the written Under the provisions of the aforesaid Fent. These provisions were similar to the provisions contained in the U.