Mrs. Surjit Kaur Vs. Pushpinder Singh Behl

Mrs. Surjit Kaur vs Pushpinder Singh Behl

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 20, 2006

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/612862

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/612862
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Decided On: Jan 20, 2006
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 401 of 2006 (O and M)
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

- Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section ...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13(4) and 15(5)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mrs. Surjit Kaur

Advocate S.S. Dinarpur, Adv.

Respondent

Pushpinder Singh Behl

Legal References

Acts: East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13(4) and 15(5)
Cases Referred: Raghunath G. Panhale v. Chagan Lal Sudarji and Co.
Reported In: (2006)143PLR40

Excerpt

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - 2...........the respondent is a mere desire and the same can not be said to be reasonable and bona fide. he further submits that on earlier occasion also, in the year 1988, an ejectment application was file by the respondent-landlord, which was dismissed. this fact also establishes that requirement of the respondent-landlord for personal necessity is not bona fide and he only wants ejectment of the petitioner-tenant for renting it out to some other tenant.4. after hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, i do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by both the courts below. it has been held that from the documents available on record, it has been proved that wife of the respondent had got education at chandigarh. they do not own any other bundling in the urban area in chandigarh and they did not vacate any such building. it is further found that requirement of the respondent is not fanciful, unreasonable or a mere desire. in this regard, the appellate authority has observed as under: -11. there is not reason for the court to return a finding that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. the tenant can not dictate to the landlord as to how, he could adjust himself without getting the possession of the demised premises. the desire of the landlord who has got a house in chandigarh cannot, in any manner be seen with suspicion especially when he has got a house in chandigarh and wants to stay away from the polluted environment of delhi. the court has got no jurisdiction to doubt the intention of a landlord who after having retired wants to live peaceful life in chandigarh. in view of the above and following the guidelines of the hon'ble supreme court in 1999(2) page 485 raghunath g. panhale v. chagan lal sudarji and co. i do not find any ground to interfere in the findings of the rent controller regarding the bona fide need of the landlord. it is further observed that enough safe guards have been provided by the rent.....

Full Judgment

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. The tenant has filed this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against the orders of ejectment, passed against her by both the Courts below on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlord.

2. In this case, the respondent-landlord field the ejectment application against the petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as for personal necessity. The demised premises is a flat situated in Sector 40-D, Chandigarh, which was allotted to father of the respondent-landlord and which was let out at the monthly rent of Rs. 400/- per month to the husband of the petitioner, who has now expired. The demised premises is required by the respondent-landlord as he and his wife have decided to live in the said house. At present, the respondent is residing in Delhi and it has been alleged that he and his wife have decided to settle in Chandigarh, after the retirement, as his other brothers are also living in Chandigarh. But the Courts below, after considering the various evidence led by the parties, have come to the conclusion that ejectment of the respondent is bona fide and ejectment of the petitioner-tenant has been ordered.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the Courts below on issue No. 2, is not sustainable. It has been argued that requirement of the respondent is a mere desire and the same can not be said to be reasonable and bona fide. He further submits that on earlier occasion also, in the year 1988, an ejectment application was file by the respondent-landlord, which was dismissed. This fact also establishes that requirement of the respondent-landlord for personal necessity is not bona fide and he only wants ejectment of the petitioner-tenant for renting it out to some other tenant.

4. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below. It has been held that from the documents available on record, it has been proved that wife of the respondent had got education at Chandigarh. They do not own any other bundling in the urban area in Chandigarh and they did not vacate any such building. It is further found that requirement of the respondent is not fanciful, unreasonable or a mere desire. In this regard, the Appellate Authority has observed as under: -

11. There is not reason for the Court to return a finding that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. The tenant can not dictate to the landlord as to how, he could adjust himself without getting the possession of the demised premises. The desire of the landlord who has got a house in Chandigarh cannot, in any manner be seen with suspicion especially when he has got a house in Chandigarh and wants to stay away from the polluted environment of Delhi. The Court has got no jurisdiction to doubt the intention of a landlord who after having retired wants to live peaceful life in Chandigarh. In view of the above and following the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1999(2) page 485 Raghunath G. Panhale v. Chagan Lal Sudarji and Co. I do not find any ground to interfere in the findings of the Rent Controller regarding the bona fide need of the landlord. It is further observed that enough safe guards have been provided by the Rent Act itself which enable a tenant to approach the Court for taking the possession back in case the landlord rents out again the demised premises or does not occupy the same after getting the same vacated as per provisions of Section 13(4) of the Rent Act.

5. Regarding the earlier ejectment application, which was dismissed in default, it has been found by the Courts below that the plea of res judicata is not applicable in case of personal necessity. Counsel for the petitioner has also not challenged the finding in this regard recorded by the Appellate Authority.

6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition.

7. Dismissed.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2006 Same Parties Mrs. Surjit Kaur vs Pushpinder Singh Behl Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Satish Kumar Mittal, J. Acts & Sections East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13(4)...

Tenancy