Pala Driver Vs. Narinderpal Bagga

Pala Driver vs Narinderpal Bagga

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided May 06, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1040197

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1040197
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: May 06, 2013
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Tenancy

Key legal issue: Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pala Driver

Respondent

Narinderpal Bagga

Excerpt

.....:06. 05.2013 pala driver ....petitioner v/s narinderpal bagga ....respondent before : hon'ble mr.justice rajan gupta present: mr.naresh prabhakar, advocate for the petitioner. rajan gupta j. (oral) present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the courts below directing ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question. respondent-landlord filed an ejectment petition seeking eviction of the petitioner inter alia on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity from the demised premises which is a small house situated in kapurthala. on notice being issued, respondent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. tenant took up the plea that there was an agreement to sell between the landlord and the petitioner. to support his case, landlord himself stepped into the witness box and examined 3 other witnesses. defendant also deposed before the court and examined another witness. as the tenant failed to tender the rent, rent controller came to the conclusion that he was in arrears thereof. he also found that personal necessity of the landlord was genuine and tenant was liable to the evicted on this ground as well. he, thus, c.r.no.2858 o”2. allowed the petition filed by the landlord and granted 3 months time to the tenant to vacate the premises. findings of the rent controller were unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate court. aggrieved, present revision petition has been preferred. mr.prabhakar has mainly contended that findings of the courts below are erroneous. there being agreement to sell between the parties, petitioner could not be held to be tenant of the respondent. i find no merit in this plea. there is concurrent findings of two courts below that there was landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent. this apart, no document showing agreement to sell between the parties was produced before the rent controller. under the circumstances, there is no ground to interfere in concurrent.....

Full Judgment

C.R.No.2858 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2858 of 2013 Date of decision :

06. 05.2013 Pala Driver ....Petitioner V/s Narinderpal Bagga ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the petitioner.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

(ORAL) Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the courts below directing ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question.

Respondent-landlord filed an ejectment petition seeking eviction of the petitioner inter alia on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity from the demised premises which is a small house situated in Kapurthala.

On notice being issued, respondent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant.

Tenant took up the plea that there was an agreement to sell between the landlord and the petitioner.

To support his case, landlord himself stepped into the witness box and examined 3 other witnesses.

Defendant also deposed before the court and examined another witness.

As the tenant failed to tender the rent, Rent Controller came to the conclusion that he was in arrears thereof.

He also found that personal necessity of the landlord was genuine and tenant was liable to the evicted on this ground as well.

He, thus, C.R.No.2858 o”

2. allowed the petition filed by the landlord and granted 3 months time to the tenant to vacate the premises.

Findings of the Rent Controller were unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate court.

Aggrieved, present revision petition has been preferred.

Mr.Prabhakar has mainly contended that findings of the courts below are erroneous.

There being agreement to sell between the parties, petitioner could not be held to be tenant of the respondent.

I find no merit in this plea.

There is concurrent findings of two courts below that there was landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent.

This apart, no document showing agreement to sell between the parties was produced before the Rent Controller.

Under the circumstances, there is no ground to interfere in concurrent findings of two courts below.

Dismissed.

May 06, 2013 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2013 Same Parties Pala Driver vs Narinderpal Bagga Same Subject Tenancy