Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CAPT HARMINDER SINGH versus PRITAM SINGH MALHI

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Capt Harminder Singh v. Pritam Singh Malhi - CM-14324-25-CII-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8213 (10 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM 14324-25-CII of 2006 in

Civil Revision 6844 of 2005

Date of decision: 13.10.2006

Capt Harminder Singh ...Petitioner

Versus

Pritam Singh Malhi ...Respondent

Present: Mr Harminderjit Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

S.S. SARON, J.

This CM has been filed by the tenant-petitioner for recalling the order dated 22.12.2005 passed by this Court whereby the revision petition filed by him under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act for short) has been dismissed and the order dated 19.11.2005 ordering eviction of the applicant from the demised premises passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar under Section 13-B of the Act has been upheld.

Learned counsel for the applicant-tenant contends that the respondent-landlord Pritam Singh Malhi owns large number of shops in building No.916 situated near Narinder Cinema, GT Road, Jalandhar and he has filed various applications for eviction of his tenants from the various shops. It is contended that eviction has been sought on the ground that the respondent is a NRI and wants to return to India. The claim made by the landlord-respondent was resisted by the applicant but he was unsuccessful and his revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 22.12.2005.

CM 14324-25-CII of 2006 in

Civil Revision 6844 of 2005

However, the revision petition i.e. CR 1202 of 2006 filed by another tenant M/s Sharma Travels and others has been admitted. It is further contended that there are five other similar petitions pending in this Court against the same landlord-respondent filed by the other tenants. Therefore, it is contended that the order dated 22.12.2005 is liable to be recalled and the present revision petition is also liable to be admitted.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no ground to recall the order dated 22.12.2005. At the time of hearing of the case on 22.12.2005, the pendency of the other revision petitions was not brought to the notice of the Court. Besides, the mere fact that other revision petitions are pending in this Court, is by itself no ground to recall the order dated 22.12.2005.

In the circumstances, the application for recalling the order dated 22.12.2005 is dismissed.

13.10.2006. ( S.S.SARON )

ASR JUDGE

CM 14324-25-CII of 2006 in

Civil Revision 6844 of 2005


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.