Brij Lal Vs. Chand Kumar

Brij Lal vs Chand Kumar

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Aug 05, 1993

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/629150

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/629150
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: V.K. Jhanji, J.
Decided On: Aug 05, 1993
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 2656 of 1986
Subject: Property;Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

- HINDU LAW -- Custom: [Vijender Jain, C.J., M.M. Kumar, Jasbir Singh, Rajive Bhalla & Rajesh Bindal, JJ] Alienation of ancestral property - Punjab and Haryana - Held, In respect of State of Punjab by virtue of Punjab Amendment Act, 1973 there is a complete bar to contest any alienation of ancestral or non-ancestra...

Key legal issue: Property;Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Sections 4 and 15(6)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Brij Lal

Advocate Arun Jain, Adv.

Respondent

Chand Kumar

Advocate Bhoop Singh, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Sections 4 and 15(6)
Reported In: (1993)104PLR658

Excerpt

.....contest such alienation. it was, therefore, felt necessary to engraft certain restriction on degrees of collateral, eligible to contest an alienation, which under the custom itself was not limited. accordingly, the punjab custom (power to contest) act, 1920 (act no.2 of 1920) was enacted. the hindu succession act was extended to the state of punjab. act 2 of punjab act defined expression alienation to include any testamentary disposition of property and appointment of an heir was to include any adoption made or purporting to be made according to custom. a further provision was made by section 3 that hindu succession act was to apply only in respect of alienation of immovable property or appointment of heirs made by persons who in regard to such alienation or appointment were governed by custom. whereas section 4 declared that hindu succession act was not to affect any right to contest any alienation or appointment of an heir made before the date on which the succession act was to come into force. in other words, act, no.2 of 1920 was not to affect alienation or appointments of heir made before date on which it came into force. it also preserved the rights of any alienation or appointment of an heir made by a family. after section 7 was inserted in act of 1920 by the punjab amendment act of 1973 right of contest being contrary to custom had been totally effaced and taken away. therefore, no person has any right to contest any alienation of immovable property whether ancestral or non-ancestral on ground of being contrary to custom after january 23, 1973. in haryana, the situation as enunciated by act no.2 of 1920 continued to prevail in respect of alienation because no reforms parallel to punjab as brought by amendment act of 1973, had been enacted although right to pre-emption has been substantially abolished in haryana also. no steps even have been taken in that regard. therefore, situation in haryana have to be regarded as it existed under act no. 2 of..........order of the rent controller was affirmed. landlord has now impugned the said order in this court3. mr. arun jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the rent controller as well as the appellate authority have not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record according to him, the other shops in the vicinity are fetching rent at the rate of rs. 400/- per month or more than that, and, therefore, finding of the authorities below on this count be sustained.4. having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, i am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. admittedly, no rent note was executed at the time the shop was let out to the respondent. no receipt has come on record evidencing the rate of rent. the rent controller as well as the appellate authority on appreciation of the oral evidence, have returned a firm finding of fact with regard to rate of rent, which calls for no interference by this court, the appellate authority found that the rent of the shops adjoining the shop in dispute is not more than rs. 60/- or rs. 70/- per month, whereas respondent was paying rs. 90/- per month. in this view of the matter, to my mind, the fair rent of the shop in dispute was rightly fixed at rs. 90/- per month.5. consequently, revision petition is dismissed. no costs.

Full Judgment

V.K. Jhanji, J.

1. Landlord in this revision petition is impugning the finding of the Authorities below whereby fair rent of the shop was fixed at Rs. 90/- per month,. which rent the respondent was already paying to the landlord.

2. The shop in dispute is situated at Patiala Chowk, Jind. Landlord petitioner filed a petition under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (briefly 'the Act') for fixation of fair rent of the shop on the ground that the shop was let out to the respondent tenant at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month in the year 1975 According to the landlord, after letting out of the shop to the respondent, rates of rent have gone very high, as similar shops of the similar accommodation in the same locality are fetching at least Rs. 400/ for one month, but the respondent has been continuing to pay Rs. 90/- par month, which is neither agreed nor fair rent Respondent in his written statement denied that the rent was fixed at Rs. 90/- in the year 1975. According to the respondent, rent in the year 1975 was Rs. 50/, whereafter it was increased to Rs. 70/- and again in November, 1982, rent was increased to Rs. 90/- per month He also denied that the shops in the vicinity are fetching rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. According to him, rate of rent of the shops similar to the shop in dispute are not more than Rs. 707-or Rs, 80/- par month. The Rent Controller on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, found that the shops adjoining the shop in dispute are on rent at the rate of Rs. 60/- or Rs. 70/ per month, whereas the respondent is paying Rs. 90/- per month. Accordingly, it was held that the fair rent of the shop in dispute cannot be more than Rs. 90/- per month. On appeal by the landlord, order of the Rent Controller was affirmed. Landlord has now impugned the said order in this Court

3. Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record According to him, the other shops in the vicinity are fetching rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month or more than that, and, therefore, finding of the Authorities below on this count be sustained.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. Admittedly, no rent note was executed at the time the shop was let out to the respondent. No receipt has come on record evidencing the rate of rent. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority on appreciation of the oral evidence, have returned a firm finding of fact with regard to rate of rent, which calls for no interference by this Court, The Appellate Authority found that the rent of the shops adjoining the shop in dispute is not more than Rs. 60/- or Rs. 70/- per month, whereas respondent was paying Rs. 90/- per month. In this view of the matter, to my mind, the fair rent of the shop in dispute was rightly fixed at Rs. 90/- per month.

5. Consequently, revision petition is dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 1993 Same Parties Brij Lal vs Chand Kumar Same Subject Property;Civil Same Judge V.K. Jhanji, J. Acts & Sections Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Sect...

Property;Civil