Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. DR. M.L. SHARMA & Anr. - CR-6161-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 29 (6 January 2006)

C.R. No. 6161 of 2005 (1)


C.R. No. 6161 of 2005.

Date of Decision: 23.1.2006.

United Insurance Company Ltd. ....Petitioner.


Dr. M.L. Sharma and another. ...Respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.


Tenant is in revision aggrieved against the orders passed by the authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act'), whereby an order of eviction has been passed against the petitioner on the ground that the demised premises are required for bona-fide personal use of the landlord.

The petitioner is a tenant in the area measuring 1000 square yards on the first floor of the building, which was once held by a Joint Hindu Family. The portion let out to the petitioner has fallen to the share of the landlord. The said portion was let out on 15.12.1986 initially for a period of 5 years with a further stipulation to extend the period of lease for another five years with 15% increase in the rent every year. After the C.R. No. 6161 of 2005 (2)

expiry of the lease period, the landlord sought enhancement in the rent and subsequently served a notice upon the petitioner to vacate the premises on the ground that the same is required for his bona-fide use and occupation.

It has been found by both the Courts below that the landlord has been able to prove that the premises let out to the petitioner is required for his bona-fide use and occupation, particularly that of his son, who is a Doctor. It has been further found that the premises already in occupation of the landlord is small portion away from road and not sufficient to increase the medical facilities, which are required by the landlord while carrying on his medical practice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is the case of mere wish and desire of the landlord. The landlord has not proved his bona-fide need, which may warrant eviction of the tenant.

Learned counsel has relied upon notices dated 14.12.1996, 27.1.1997 and 12.9.2003 to contend that the landlord has sought increase in rent and, therefore, on account of failure to increase the rent, the landlord has sought eviction of the petitioner. This aspect has been considered by the learned Appellate Authority. It has been found that son of the landlord passed M.B.B.S in the year 1995. He has since Post Graduated as well.

The son of the landlord is though working in a hospital for want of availability of the sufficient accommodation for settling him. Thus, it cannot be said that the communications addressed by the landlord are C.R. No. 6161 of 2005 (3)

with a motive to only seek increase in rent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as 2003(2) RCR 357 Daropti Devi Vs. Union of India and others, to contend that where the landlord has sought increase in rent just four months prior to the filing of the eviction petition, the landlord is not entitled to seek eviction on the ground of bona-fide personal requirement. However, that was a case where a finding was recorded by the authorities under the Act that the landlady has failed to prove her bona- fide requirement for use and occupation of the premises. Mere fact that at one point of time, after the expiry of lease and in terms of lease, the landlord has sought increase in rent, it would not debar the landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of established bona-fide requirement for use and occupation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the landlord has relied upon memorandum of family settlement dated 12.10.1981 although the property was leased to the petitioner by all the co- parceners vide Exhibit PW3/1 and, therefore, the family settlement is not genuine and has been created to seek eviction of the petitioner.

The said argument is wholly untenable. Firstly, the petitioner cannot dispute the family settlement between the co-parceners. Secondly, even as a co-sharer, the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from the premises in occupation of the tenant. As a tenant, the petitioner cannot C.R. No. 6161 of 2005 (4)

insist that instead of the petitioner, another tenant on the ground floor should be evicted.

Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

Hence, the present petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.

23.1.2006. (Hemant Gupta)

ds Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.