Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAI NARAIN versus SURESH KUMAR ARORA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jai Narain v. Suresh Kumar Arora - CP-387-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 6148 (29 August 2006)

CR No. 387 of 2006 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR No. 387 of 2006

Date of Decision: 8.9.2006

Jai Narain ...Petitioner

Versus

Suresh Kumar Arora ....Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri Arun Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Shri Arun Palli, Advocate, for the respondent.

JUDGMENT

The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short `the Act') whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the shop in dispute.

It is the case of the respondent that he is the landlord of the shop constructed in a portion of the property bearing No. 1113-A, Railways Road, Panipat and that this property was let out to the present petitioner 7/8 years ago. It was stated that he is a qualified diary technologist and he wants to start his own consultancy services in the field of dairy at Panipat, which is close to Delhi and Karnal, to cater to the needs of various industries in Delhi and Karnal. Thus, it is alleged that the shop in dispute is the most suitable place for starting consultancy services and that he has not vacated any shop after coming into force of the Act, and has no other shop having this location, where the present shop is located to be suitable for consultancy services.

CR No. 387 of 2006 (2)

Though the learned Rent Control has rejected the petition holding that there is alternative accommodation available to the landlord, but the learned Appellate Authority has found that the alternative accommodation found by the learned Rent Controller, is in fact, first floor of the premises in dispute, which is not fit for human habitation and thus passed an order for ejectment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the landlord has not disclosed that the first floor of the premises in dispute is available to him and that such premises are not suitable for his use and occupation and, therefore, the learned Appellate Authority has made out a new case for the landlord, which was not even pleaded.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is the categorical case of the landlord that the landlord is not having any shop in his possession to start consultancy services and that the shop shown in the site plan and as mentioned in the ejectment petition is the most suitable place for starting consultancy services. Once, the landlord has explained the suitability of the premises for his consultancy services, neither the tenant nor the Courts can substitute the requirement of the landlord that instead of ground floor, he can he can start his consultancy services in the first floor.

The argument that the learned Appellate Authority has made out a new case for the landlord is not sustainable in law. It is a categorical case of the landlord that the premises in possession of the tenant are suitable for starting the consultancy services. May be the learned Appellate Authority has held that the first floor is unfit for human habitation but that CR No. 387 of 2006 (3)

will not entitle the tenant to allege that the landlord himself should shift to the first floor, though as per the landlord it is the ground floor, which is suitable for starting consultancy services.

In view of the above, I do not find that the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority, suffer from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Hence, the present petition is dismissed.

However, the ejectment order shall not be executed for a period of two months from today provided the petitioner furnishes an undertaking before the learned Executing Court within two weeks from today to hand over vacant physical possession of the premises in dispute on or before 15.11.2006 and that he shall pay entire arrears of rent and monthly rent till such time, he is in possession of the premises.

08-09-2006 (HEMANT GUPTA)

ds JUDGE


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.