Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARYANA AGRO

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Haryana Agro-Industries Corporation v. Umesh Kumar - CR-6467-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 516 (2 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No. 6467 of 2005

Date of Decision: January 20, 2006

Haryana Agro-Industries Corporation ...........Petitioner Ltd.& another

Versus

Umesh Kumar ..........Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Hemant Gupta

Present: Mr. Pankaj Gupta,Advocate,

for the petitioner,

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (oral)

The defendant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the Appellate authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act,1973 on the ground that the petitioner has not paid arrears of rent.

It is the case of the petitioner that the demise premises have been vacated on 19.4.2001 and prior to vacation of the premises, rent payable has been adjusted against the fertilizer delivered to the landlord.

However, it has been found that the possession has been taken by the landlord through the execution of the warrants of possession on 24.8.2005 and that the tenant unilaterally adjusted the arrears of rent against the sale consideration of the fertilizer.

The fact remains that the petitiner is not in possession of the disputed property. The dispute is regarding the liability of payment of rent.

It has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as Amar Singh and another versus Dalip, PLR 1981 PB& HR 649 that the findings recorded by the Court of the limited jurisdiction do not operate as res judicata in subsequent civil suit.

In view of the said judgment, the apprehension epxressed by the petitioner that the findings recorded by the authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 would create liability of rent on the petitioner, is a misconception.

Consequently, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Dismissed in limine.

(Hemant Gupta)

January 20,2006 JUDGE

arya


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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