Birbal Vs. Raj Kumar

Birbal vs Raj Kumar

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Sep 24, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/635595

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/635595
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: H.S. Bedi, J.
Decided On: Sep 24, 2003
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 311 of 1988
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Sections 13(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Birbal

Advocate Jaswant Jain, Adv.

Respondent

Raj Kumar

Advocate Ashok Aggarwal and; Sanjay Mittal, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Sections 13(2)
Reported In: (2004)136PLR777

Excerpt

- h.s. bedi, j.1. this is a tenant's revision petition against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the rent controller and the appellate court. it arises out of the following facts:-2. raj kumar landlord/respondent filed an eviction application under section 1 of the haryana urban (control of rent and eviction) act, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'act'), on the allegations that the tenant/petitioner had not paid the arrears of rent w.e.f. 26.9.1977 till the date of filing of the petition; that he had impaired the value and utility of the shop; and that the shop had been kept closed for a period of more than four months without any reasonable cause. the petition was allowed ex-parte vide order of rent controller dated 29.2.1980. it is the admitted position that pursuant thereto the landlord took possession of the demised premises on 22.4.1980. the ex-parte proceedings recorded against the petitioner were set aside on 14.11.1985 but the ejectment was nevertheless ordered on the ground that he had ceased to occupy the premises for more than four months without reasonable cause. this finding was affirmed in appeal.3. the present petition has been filed on behalf of the tenant.4. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully with their assistance.5. it is the admitted position that the landlord had taken possession of the demisedpremises more than 23 years earlier. it has also come in evidence that the shop in question had been kept locked since the year 1987 upto the date of the filing of the ejectment petition. mr. jaswant jain has, however, argued that the shop had been kept closedfor the reasons that the tenant had been ill and had been admitted to hospital and, hadtherefore, not been able to conduct his business during that period. it is clear from therecord, however, that this particular point has not been raised by the tenant at any stage.on the contrary it has come in the evidence of the landlord/respondent.....

Full Judgment

H.S. Bedi, J.

1. This is a tenant's revision petition against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court. It arises out of the following facts:-

2. Raj Kumar landlord/respondent filed an eviction application under Section 1 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), on the allegations that the tenant/petitioner had not paid the arrears of rent w.e.f. 26.9.1977 till the date of filing of the petition; that he had impaired the value and utility of the shop; and that the shop had been kept closed for a period of more than four months without any reasonable cause. The petition was allowed ex-parte vide order of Rent Controller dated 29.2.1980. It is the admitted position that pursuant thereto the landlord took possession of the demised premises on 22.4.1980. The ex-parte proceedings recorded against the petitioner were set aside on 14.11.1985 but the ejectment was nevertheless ordered on the ground that he had ceased to occupy the premises for more than four months without reasonable cause. This finding was affirmed in appeal.

3. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the tenant.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully with their assistance.

5. It is the admitted position that the landlord had taken possession of the demisedpremises more than 23 years earlier. It has also come in evidence that the shop in question had been kept locked since the year 1987 upto the date of the filing of the ejectment petition. Mr. Jaswant Jain has, however, argued that the shop had been kept closedfor the reasons that the tenant had been ill and had been admitted to hospital and, hadtherefore, not been able to conduct his business during that period. It is clear from therecord, however, that this particular point has not been raised by the tenant at any stage.On the contrary it has come in the evidence of the landlord/respondent that the shop appeared to have been kept closed for a period of four months in the year 1987 for no apparent reason. To my mind, the finding of fact recorded against the tenant, thus, cannotbe disturbed. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2003 Same Parties Birbal vs Raj Kumar Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge H.S. Bedi, J. Acts & Sections Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Sect...

Tenancy